I'm glad to hear Jim Nantz face reality

[bpatrick]

Watching the finals of the AT&T championship yesterday (as riveting
a round of golf as I've ever seen, what with Bo Van Pelt matching Tiger
shot for shot until the last two holes), I was happy to hear Jim Nantz,
who rarely speaks ill of Tiger, raise the question on every golf fan's mind:
is Tiger back and headed for the top again? (He does lead in FedEx cup
points and has now won more tournaments than anyone except Sam Snead.)
But here's the point: Tiger won Arnold Palmer's tournament at Bay Hill and
did so-so at the Masters; he won Jack Nicklaus' tournament at Muirfield and
did so-so at the U.S. Open. Now he's won his own tournament and (to his
credit, since he's playing more golf) will be at Greenbrier next week, with the
British Open straight ahead. But Nantz made this observation: some people
think Tiger is back, others think not, so why not let events play out and see
what happens?

That's in contrast to Nick Faldo, who predicted that the 36-year-old Woods,
assuming he doesn't blow his knee again, can win every major for the next
ten years. Has he bothered to look at the young talent out there, or has his
Tiger worship blinded him to the fact that there are plenty of guys who can,
on any given day, stop Tiger from winning 19 majors and passing Nicklaus?

Too bad CBS doesn't have Johnny Miller alongside Nantz; Miller assumes nothing
about any golfer's chances and doesn't go out of his way to make friends with them.

Still it was a breath of fresh air to hear Nantz, for once, put things in perspective:
Tiger has won three tournaments this year (more than anyone else) but whether he's
the Tiger he was before his personal problems surfaced still remains to be seen. Nantz
is right: let's see what happens on a week-to-week basis before fans draw their conclusions
one way or the other.

 

[BRice16]

That's in contrast to Nick Faldo, who predicted that the 36-year-old Woods,
assuming he doesn't blow his knee again, can win every major for the next
ten years. Has he bothered to look at the young talent out there, or has his
Tiger worship blinded him to the fact that there are plenty of guys who can,
on any given day, stop Tiger from winning 19 majors and passing Nicklaus?

That's not how I heard his statement. What I understood him to say (in response to Nantz saying he had at least 10 good years left, if healthy) is that with 40 majors ahead of him, it's more than possible that he wins at least one of those. He then questioned whether it would be possible for Tiger to win five more, to which Nantz agreed, saying that five majors is a great career by itself.

 

[arnoldevns]

My view: the TV folks ignore a very important stat that will always make Nicklaus the best golfer ever. Nicklaus played almost every week and has more second and third place finishes than anyone. Woods has picked his tounaments carefully and has never demonstrated the stamina for a season that Nicklaus did for probably 25 seasons or more. The fact that Nantz and others continue to ignore that shows just what a huge bias they have toward Tiger.

 

[landtuna]

My view: the TV folks ignore a very important stat that will always make Nicklaus the best golfer ever. Nicklaus played almost every week and has more second and third place finishes than anyone. Woods has picked his tounaments carefully and has never demonstrated the stamina for a season that Nicklaus did for probably 25 seasons or more. The fact that Nantz and others continue to ignore that shows just what a huge bias they have toward Tiger.

It's all about the money. Play the 'hero' up and get more attention, sponsorships, attendance, money.

But, really.....stamina? A leisurely stroll of 36 holes plus a few hours on the putting green weekly is stamina? Put these golfers, any golfer, on an ice hockey rink, a basketball court or a soccer field and see how much stamina they've got. Arguing about who the "greatest" golfer is can be a really moot point. Unless, of course, you are interested in how much money he brings to the game, his sponsor and his hanger-ons. That would be a different measurement. ;D

 

[bpatrick]

That's in contrast to Nick Faldo, who predicted that the 36-year-old Woods,
assuming he doesn't blow his knee again, can win every major for the next
ten years. Has he bothered to look at the young talent out there, or has his
Tiger worship blinded him to the fact that there are plenty of guys who can,
on any given day, stop Tiger from winning 19 majors and passing Nicklaus?

That's not how I heard his statement. What I understood him to say (in response to Nantz saying he had at least 10 good years left, if healthy) is that with 40 majors ahead of him, it's more than possible that he wins at least one of those. He then questioned whether it would be possible for Tiger to win five more, to which Nantz agreed, saying that five majors is a great career by itself.

OK, I'll admit I may have misunderstood Faldo. But here's my opinion: Tiger has shown flashes of brilliance this year; he's won three tournaments (more than anyone else) and is first on the FedEx Cup points list. However, he hasn't sealed the deal at a major (there are still two left, however). And I still think there are plenty of young golfers who can give him the test Bo Van Pelt gave him Sunday (Hunter Mahan, Webb Simpson, Dustin Johnson, and Zach Johnson are just four who come to mind). Yes, with forty majors over the next ten years the odds of his winning at least one are no doubt better than even money. Five, meaning he has to win one in eight, I'm not sure about.

CBS is also playing up the fact that both Tiger and Phil Mickelson, the two biggest draws in golf, are playing Greenbrier this weekend. While that translates to a potentially large tune-in, I haven't been impressed with Phil's play of late, and he needs some momentum going into the British Open.

I am glad, though, to see Tiger playing more; he's playing right up to the British Open when ordinarily he would skip the week before a major. Maybe he realizes that to get back to where he was five or ten years ago, he has to play more tournament golf. I'd kill to see him come to Greensboro and play the Wyndham sometime (after all, he plays Quail Hollow in Charlotte), and what that would do for ticket sales to that event would be out of this world.

But all that's just my opinion. I probably did, however, misunderstand Faldo. And I still (1) wish CBS could hire Johnny Miller away from NBC, and (2) agree with Nantz: let's see what happens with Tiger on a week-to-week basis before we start saying "he's back" or "he isn't back."