Tiger Woods: Greatest Golfer, Not Greatest Athlete

It was the great “Hammerin’” Hank Aaron who started the recent glorification of Tiger Woods. He called Tiger “The most dominating athlete in sports history,” and other sports columnists, reporters and bar commentators have now taken the bait and asked if he is the most dominant athlete ever, and in some cases, the greatest athlete ever. There is no question that he is the most dominant golfer right now – and probably will be the greatest player in the history of that sport once he is finished. At just 32 he has won 13 major championships, has 63 PGA tour victories and has won all four majors in a row (though not in the same year). When he is done, the records he will set may stand for centuries. However, comparing his accomplishments to dominant athletes in other sports is problematic. The case in favor of greatness was presented, in some part, by Washington Post columnist and PTI knucklehead Michael Wilbon:

Excuse me, but Roger Federer’s recent stretch of dominance, impressive by any historical standard for tennis, doesn’t come close to Tiger’s. Winning a tennis tournament requires beating six opponents, not the field. Tiger doesn’t ever have the luxury of having another opponent take out, say, Mickelson and Sergio Garcia. It’s up to Tiger alone. And while Jimmie Johnson’s back-to-back NASCAR championships are no doubt impressive, there’s no drafting in golf as there is in stock car racing, no teamwork that could result in the kind of “Push From Heaven” that determined the outcome of the Daytona 500.

Golf, as different as it is from boxing, is entirely self-reliant. Michael Jordan, great as he was, still had Scottie Pippen. Jordan hit plenty of game-winning shots but there were times he passed to teammates, notably John Paxson and Steve Kerr, to win games with final shots. Tiger doesn’t get to toss the putter to an open teammate on the 18th green at Augusta National

Wilbon seems to think that golf is superior to team sports because you do not have teammates – because instead of playing selected opponents, you play against the whole field. However the same arguments could be used to say that the golfer has an advantage over these other athletes.

My sports hero growing up was the great Walter Payton of the Chicago Bears. He wasn’t the quickest running back and he didn’t have the speed to break off into long runs, but through his perseverance he left the sport in 1987 as the most prolific runner in NFL history with 16726 yards – a record that stood until Emmitt Smith broke it in 2002. Payton got all those yards while several 250 pound players on the other side were trying to tackle him, crush him, push him, toss him, pound him and just generally use brute force to stop him. This is of course true of all football running backs, but the point is that while they have teammates to use for help – blockers in the case of Payton and Smith, they also have opponents trying to prevent them from moving forward.

When Wilbon states that while Jordan hit many game-winners, but he had teammates he could pass to who also could win the game — “Tiger doesn’t get to toss the putter to an open teammate on the 18^th green at Augusta National” – he fails to mention that Jordan has Clyde Drexler trying to steal the ball or block his shot. There is nobody running towards Woods to intercept his golf ball. Nobody is trying to hit his ball to another part of the course to make it harder for him. In this sense, croquet has more obstacles than golf.

Wilbon notes that while Roger Federer has been impressively dominant in the sport of tennis, he only needs to beat 6 opponents to win a tournament — Tiger has to defeat the entire field – often numbering over 100 golfers. But the definition of opponent is different. While Federer’s opponent in a match is trying to hit the ball where he can’t get it, Tiger is basically has two total opponents: The course – and himself. His skill level is so superior to other golfers that he can conquer both of those opponents week after week. It is impressive and I enjoy watching him – and like many, I only watch golf on TV when he is playing. But golf doesn’t have the variable of an opposition that is actively trying to prevent you from completing your goal. I do not deny the mental/psychological aspect of golf, and intimidating your opponents as a strategy – but it is very different from a pitcher throwing inside to back the batter off the plate.

I do not deny Tiger’s dominance, skill and athleticism. I enjoy watching him more than most athletes playing their respective sports right now (Alex Ovechkin, the mesmerizing forward for the Washington Capitals hockey team is my current favorite). But in terms of comparisons to other sports, golf wanes when comparing players. How many points could Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain have scored if the most intimidation they faced were the looks and jeers of opponents? How many home runs could Babe Ruth have hit if one of his own teammates pitched to him?

Tiger plays against himself and the course – and they are two opponents that he has mastered. I do not want to diminish his accomplishments in that he is a joy to watch – and the skills of golf are some of the most difficult to master in the world of sports. But when comparing the greatness and dominance of athletes across sports, the golfer just doesn’t match up – even when that golfer is Tiger Woods.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::  Email This Post   ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: