Throughout the Tiger Woods Era the media has focused on Tiger’s quest to surpass Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 majors. It’s as if nothing else matters. The media typically brushes over Nicklaus’ 19 seconds when they are mentioned. Worse yet, this magnificent record is often discounted. Indeed, some “experts” go so far as to say that Nicklaus’ seconds only show that he’s not as good at closing the deal as Tiger. They forget that he was a perfect eight for eight when he held or shared a 54 hole lead at the majors.
Occasionally the writers will mention that Nicklaus faced topflight competition, which resulted in many of those runner ups finishes. Guys like Palmer, Player, Trevino, and Watson, who handed him 11 of his loses. Regardless, the case for Nicklaus’s seconds is quickly forgotten as the talk becomes centered again on Tiger’s pursuit of number 19.
Those who watched Nicklaus and Palmer at the 1960 US Open will never forget that Palmer, who lost an 18 hole playoff, was a huge part of the proceedings. And at the 1977 British Open at Turnberry, Tom Watson bested Nicklaus by a single shot over 72 holes in a duel that left them 10 and 11 shots clear of the field. Watson won, but Nicklaus might as well have his name on the trophy because he’s as much a part of the memory as Watson.
Woods’ Greatest Yet
In the aftermath of his triumph at Torrey Pines, Woods called it “… probably the greatest tournament I’ve ever had.” One reason he feels this way is his gutty performance, which has been well chronicled in the golfing media. The other reason is because he faced real competition from a most unlikely, yet worthy, adversary by the name of Rocco Mediate. Here’s what Woods had to say about the man who gave him the best fight of anyone yet it a major:
“…honestly, it (Rocco’s) was an unbelievable gutsy performance. He played so well, he put so much pressure on me all day today. And he played well all week. It was just a — it was a great battle all day and also a great friendship too.”
I hope Rocco Mediate wins a major because he’s already earned one. But at age 45 his chances are not that great. Still, he was in the arena battling with one of the two best of all time – and through it all he played like a winner though he didn’t win.
Second Doesn’t Suck
One time long ago Tiger Woods said that “second sucks.” He’d never say that today because he’s since accumulated five seconds of his own. He also knows how hard Rocco fought, and how easily the tables could have been turned. No, second is not “second loser,” it’s a placed reserved for a winner who didn’t win, but could have.
As time passes, Woods will obviously be the one most talked about and remembered, his win at the 2008 Open being one for the ages. But hopefully no one who watched it will ever forget Rocco, nor should they.
RSS
1 response so far ↓
1 BD // Jun 20, 2008 at 4:51 am
Here’s something I don’t understand: Does the fact that Palmer, Watson, and Trevino were all multiple major winners really prove that Nicklaus had stiffer competition than Woods? It seems to me all this proves is that these three golfers (actually four if we throw Nicklaus back into the equation) were significantly better than the fields THEY faced. But whether that proves anything in terms of the Tiger-v.-Jack debate depends on how those fields compared to the ones that Tiger, Phil, Ernie, Vijay, et al have been facing over the years. If the field beyond Nicklaus, Palmer, Watson, et al was weak, then of course you would expect these handful of guys to rack up a good share of the majors from that era, which they did. The deeper the talent in the field, the fewer majors you would expect to see concerntrated among the top handful of golfers.
Obviously, the same number of majors are being won today as were being won in the 60’s and 70’s (four per year). The fact that the wins are being distributed today across a wider spectrum of players suggests to me that the competition is stronger now than it was then. Unless I’m missing something.
Leave a Comment