So what do you guys think about this article?

http://www.golfgearreview.com/article-display/2776.html

Do you think the Tiger Woods / Phil Mickelson duel has the makings for golf history as some of the others mentioned in the article?

No. Tiger was out of action for 8 months and FIGJAM still hasn't caught him. Tiger probably needs a couple more weeks to dial in and if he loses the #1 spot during this time, he will soon have it back and run away with it again.

I think both Phil and Tiger played very well last week. The big difference in score was due to Tiger not makeing very many putts, and Phil was sinking them. As well as Phil is playing, it will be hard to beat him, but if Tiger starts sinking putts like he usually does, He'll be back at the top of the leaderboard again. Ask this question again in 2 months.

Arnold Palmer Invitational........Hmmmmmmmmmm! Phil's plane can't fly at the same altitude.

Third time's the charm.

Well, I have to agree with Bill on this one. While I know the media tries to make this out to be the next Nicklaus-Palmer duel, no one, not even Phil can consistently challenge (and beat) Tiger. I'm not a huge Tiger fan, not like Bill, but you have to given him his due. He is the best player in the world.

Did you hear that he wins 29% of the events he's in? That's almost 3 out of every 10 he plays in...and that's not just this year, or last, but over his career. that's startling.

I wish someone would step up, and maybe Kim will in the next year or two. Phil has to learn to stay out of Phil's head and maybe he'll have a chance but I think he's going to be like Sergio, a solid #2-#5 player in the world, but still a drop of from #1.

When Tiger first joined the tour, I was one of those that said it would never last. I told people the way he turns into the ball, his back would not last an entire career. I said he got angry too easily and it would eventually drag him down. Shows you what I know. (He did change his swing though, and it saved his back).
I played with a lot of people, including Arnold Palmer, John Miller, Ray Floyd, Tony Lema, Bob Lunn, Paul Harney and used to go to Ft. Worth to visit with and watch Ben Hogan. I knew most of the guys on tour in the 60's and 70's, including Nicklaus, and played Muirfied the day it opened. I'm mentioning this because all the stories we hear about the competition today not being what it was when these guys played is all bunk.
I started becoming a Tiger fan when I realized none of these guys, including Nicklaus, ever played the game as well as Tiger Woods. Had he played in Jack and Arnie's day, their records would not be the same records they own today.
How can I not be a fan of the greatest golfer to ever play the game.
BTW, I'm a Bobby Jones fan also. I believe he could possibly could have been the best to ever play the game. Plus, everything I read says he was a true Gentleman.

Well, I like Tiger, and I give him his due. But I'm a big under-dog sort of guy. So I like to root for the other players in the field. But I give Tiger credit. He is quite possibly the best player to have ever played. The Tiger/Nicklaus debate is a good one, and people go each way with it, but their both great. I personally like to put Arnie up there, but he's a notch back on the list. But Arnie did things for golf that brought it to the average-Joe class of people. But he was not as good as Tiger is today.

The thing I see with a lot of guys today is they don't have the skill and shot-making players of yesterday had. Tiger does, but most just bomb-and-gouge. Not as exciting to me as it is to see someone have to hit "shots" to win as opposed to just hitting it a mile.

Scott, actually you're right.......If we really looked at it in the right light, from a pure human point of view, Arnold should be considered the greatest to play the game. What he brought to the game far exceeds records. Anyone who ever followed Arnold around a course would have been totally wrapped up in his charisma. He could hook a shot on the 2nd hole, walk by the ropes and say to you, "I didn't hit that one very good, did I?" Five holes later he might walk by you again, look at you and say, "That was better than the drive on two wasn't it?" He had an uncanny way of remembering the people and their names in the gallery. That's why he always had his Army.
I worked with Mark McCormick, who was Arnold's attorney and became his manager. That opportunity allowed Mark to built IMG, which is the management group that manages all the top athletes in the world. They manage Tiger. Mark was Arnold's manager his entire career and they never had a signed contract. Their contract was the orignial handshake.

Now that's how it should be. Trust, a man's word and a handshake. Not in today's world though. Arnie would definitely be one of my picks for an ultimate round of golf.

This isn't close to Nicklaus/Palmer. And, I don;t think it can eclipse Nicklaus/Watson either. Mickelson, as well as the rest of the PGA tour, is just totally outclassed by Tiger. Nicklaus was better than his contemporaries. But, Tiger dominates and intimidates his.

Is Mickelson still ranked #3 in the world?

Bill, he's #2, just slightly behind Tiger...

Oh! I apologize. My mistake............I thought Tiger's "B" game was ranked #2 in the world.

A Phil/Tiger rivalry. I just don’t understand what people mean when they speak of a rivalry. A rivalry suggests a wrestling or a jostling for the number one position; if Tiger Woods can be out of contention for 8 months and still be #1, it means that there is no one contending for that position. Period. Now for the number two position, I can see a rivalry between Michelson, Garcia, Kim and the rest of the second tier.. But rivalry..come on guys...

That was my point too. Tiger has no rival. Nobody can touch his game. When he is playing well, he is almost unbeatable. When he is playing his best, he IS unbeatable.

TWB and Yips, are you sure you're not being financially sponsored by Bill to post these things?

Seriously, you are correct. Day in, Day out, Tiger is the most complete golfer on Tour. When on, he can do amazing things. Does he win every time, nope, but a 25% victory rate is DAMN impressive, higher than probably any other athlete, well maybe Roger Federer is close given his last couple years. But Tiger is tops.

On the rivalry, it's really Tiger vs the Field. No single golfer on tour has shown the ability to challenge Tiger day in, day out. But for TV, we like drama. So can Kim answer the challenge? Can Phil? Can Vijay? All can for a brief time, but not for long.


Maybe we should start talking about the players caddies, maybe Phil's caddie could beat Tiger's caddie???

That is a good question and it brings up other issues. This is kind of an old article and things have changed since then but not that much. Tiger still does not have competition in the field that can be compared with what Palmer or Nicklaus faced back in their day. I really think it is apples and oranges. And that is an important piece of what makes competition. For anyone that has ever competed you know that when you play with someone that is very good you play better, run faster, pedal harder than you normally would. Sure you can look at Tigers performance in the Open and make a case for him loosing his edge. But would it hold water?
Look at the competition that Nicklaus faced in his prime and the records of those players. Nicklaus had competitors like Gary Player with nine majors, Tom Watson with 8 majors, Arnold Palmer with 7 majors, Lee Trevino with 6 majors, Raymond Floyd with Four majors, Billy Casper with 3 majors, Julius Boros with 3 majors, Hale Irwin with 3 majors and all of these players had not only the talent but the mental toughness to win against him. There is not that kind of competition today for Tiger. Looking at the current list Tiger has Phil Mickelson with 3 majors, Vijay Singh with 3 majors, Ernie Els with 3 majors, Padraig Harrignton with 3 majors, Jose Maria Olazabal with 2 majors, Mark O’Mara with 2 majors (now on Champions tour), Reteif Goosen with 2 majors, the recovering John Daly with 2 majors, and Mike Weir, Lucas Glover, Geoff Ogilvy with one win. I know I left out a few but the point is the level of serious competitors in the field is no where near the same for Tiger.
So is Tiger really that good or is the field really that poor? When I think about some of the shots I have seen Tiger make consistently I think he is one of a kind and in a field of his own. So what about all the up and coming talent? Just because they have not won a major yet we cant leave them out. In the twenty something group there is Sergio (El Nino) Spain 28 and ranked number 5 right now. The name says it all. Taylor Made seems to believe in him but I don’t see that lasting much longer. Paul Casey England 29 and at #3 has been around and is a serious talent. Geoff Ogilvy Australia 29 and ranked #8, Martin Kaymer Germany 24 and raked #12 already has a few wins. Camilo Vilegas Columbia 27 and raked 13. Then down at 15 and 16 we have the two Americans Sean Ohair 27 and Anthony Kim 24 and both are making a name for themselves. So my question is where are all the Americans in this picture?

Where are the Americans? Out with Daly at Hooter's.

It's interesting to watch the younger players and new tour players (not the same thing) coming up these days. On one hand you have players earning their cards on the Nationwide tour and those aren't always spring chickens. Or you have guys coming out of college that pass q-school because they're just that damn good. Like Anthony Kim. Could he be the next Tiger? maybe, time will tell. Is he good yeah. do I put him on par with Villegas, yeah, I tend to lump them together as having about an equal shot each week. But neither jump to the top of the prediction list before an event starts. But to me, most of the new blood on the tour isn't really that NEW, it's more mature players playing their way onto the tour from the developmental leagues.

There is a lot of talent coming out of our universities. Some go on to play PGA or LPGA for another country but I do not see a lot of them going straight into the PGA playing for the USA. Maybe they are more focused on a different career. But it just seems like with the amount of emphasis American Universities, High Schools, Junior Golf Association, First Tee and others put on golf we do not have more emerging players.

Anthony Kim I like him and am always rooting for him but he when interviewed always takes an attitude of "I am a feel golfer and do not focus on mechanics of a shot" We have had a lot of successful golfers over the years like that so I am not saying he can not get it done. Just that he may lack the consistency it is going to take to compete with the likes of Tiger. Camilio is a very good golfer and an example of a player who is a product of an American University and is an emerging star for another country. You bring up a good point about the age of new tour players and that has been relative in the past but right now I can not name one player in the top 30 in the US rankings or the top 50 of the world rankings that falls into the category of an aging player from a developmental league just joining the ranks of the PGA that is a competitor. It is hard to believe that there is no talent coming out of our University system that can complete on PGA level. Are sponsors just not making opportunities for them? Last year there was an article by Golf Digest suggesting that if you want to be a pro golfer and compete for a spot on the PGA college is not the best route to take. That it only stunts growth and limits opportunities. So why is golf the exception?

I wonder if it's the nature of college golf...where only the best players at the team get to actually play in the tournaments. So if you're not the top of the top, you may not get any tournament experience.

A good friend of mine is a really good golfer by normal standard. Shoots around par, a little under some days. But he hits it dead on the screws and has lots of talent. In 4 years of college on the golf team of a small university, he only made it to play in one tournament. Now maybe he could handle the pressure or whatever and just didn't play well those days but it can be tough to get there.

Now this is just my assumption about college golf as I never played it.

But it will be interesting to see what the next 5 years hold because there are great foreign star's who are taking their place as the best in the sport. The USA does not dominate like it has in the past.

So with the LPGA that has created a marketing problem...do you think it will for the PGA tour? I haven't seen it yet...

That is true with any sport from what I have seen. I played college ball and we had a lot of talent on our team that never saw time on the court but it was for a number of reasons none of which had to do with the individual’s skill level. My daughter played college ball and ran cross-country and while running is different because either you run fast or you don't everyone runs except when you travel so you have plenty of chances to show your talent. Team sports there are a lot of variables. My son played one year of college golf in Hawaii and enjoyed it. After talking to friends at the course I found out they have a world wide ranking system for college golf. I did not know that. They rank them and somehow they get points that get them opportunities to play PGA events. I have a lot to learn about this so I need to do some reading but one of the guys I was talking to follows college golf and says there are a lot of up and comers out there. This kid in the Buick Matteson is from Georgia Tech and won the NCAA div 1 Men’s golf championship in 2002 and is the highest all time money earner on the Nationwide tour. He mentioned a few others like Van Sickle who is one of the top college golfers and is playing on the nationwide tour. So there is a lot I don't know. But I agree with you that America is not the powerhouse in golf like it used to be.
As far as the marketing problems that the LPGA has had I think that is a different can of worms. With the latest interview I saw on ESPN of Anna Rawson and her ideas to fix the marketing problems I don’t see things getting better. She wants the LPGA to play music for each player as they tee off kind of like the pro baseball teams do when certain players come to bat. OH BOY! Having a fashion outfit made for the winner of LPGA events maybe to replace the trophy? Doing combo events. Mike D just did an article about the 2014 Open and that was an interesting concept. Making marketing the decision factor for the LPGA well that has not served the news media well. Last to have a separate camera crew for each of the top golfers. Although the Korean’s have shown strong numbers and may be getting ready to dominate we still have some strong American girls in the field. We watch LPGA my wife is a big fan of both PGA and LPGA.

Wow, watching today's Bridgestone event, yes, Tiger is just that damn good. The shot he just hit on 17, 182 yards over water using an 8I to within what, 8-10 inches? wow. Great shot.

We watched the Bridgestone today also what a great battle. I was surprised when Harrington went for the green on the third shot. He had been playing smart all day being patient and just chugging along and then he got anxious and took an unnecessary risk. The commentators said it was his second shot where he blew it. He could have got out with a par if he laid up on the third. Tiger was awesome today.

You have to wonder if Paddy was playing against someone else if he would have played it safer...like he thought he had to pile up on his lead because he was afraid Tiger could catch him.