Is Tiger Woods really good, or is the rest of the field really bad?

[Darth Thanatos]

If you didn't know, Tiger Woods became the youngest player to win 50 tour events and is on pace to shatter Jack's majors record and the all-time PGA tour wins held by another golfer.

Also, he's won five consecutive tour events, including two majors.

But the meat and potatoes is some of the things the other "elite" golfers say after Tiger wins an event. Phil and Vijay(among others) say stuff like, "He hit a lot of great shots today. It's just Tiger being Tiger". Not an exact quote, but I hope you get the idea.

Do these "elite" golfers sound confident to you? Are they possibly intimidated by Tiger Woods name alone? That they have no hope of winning when Tiger steps on the green?

Is Tiger Woods really THIS GREAT, or is the rest of the field already defeated once they step on the green because of intimidation(or because they're really bad)?

[Hermy]

About 10 golfers today would be the greatest golfer ever 30 years ago.

Can you tell me a quote they could say that would make you go "wow, this guy is getting his ass handed to him week in-and-out, but he's not gonna take it."? Sometime when a dude is doing ya, ya gotta grab some lube.

[DennyMcLain]

Lefty and Vijay are good, and anybody from the middle of the pack can step it up at any time and challenge, but in the end it's Tiger's tourney to either win or lose.

Of course, the same can be said in tennis. Is Federer that good, or is the men's draw these days really for shit? How about Sampras during his reign? How about Michael Schumacher in F1, or even Richard Petty in his prime?

The problem with Tiger isn't his game, and it's not the quality of his opponenets -- it's the "character" of his opponents. Geezuschrist, when the media can only find some kiddieraper looking guy with zero personality as the most serious threat to Tiger (Lefty), or some dead serious Fijian who looks like he's taking a crap half the time (Singh) of course all will say "Tiger has no competition".

We want mono on mono. We want Nicklaus v. Palmer, or McEnroe v. Borg, or Everett v. Navartalova. We want Russell v. Chamberlain, or USA v. USSR. As of this moment, not a single personality has risen with enough game to challenge Tiger both professionally and publicly, and untli that happens, it'll be Tiger v. everybody else.

[b-diddy]

funny, just 2 months ago, people were completely on the other side of the fence with tiger. all this tiger talk has been awol for two years (though it springs up whenever he wins). its just, now his game is really clicking.

the field has greatly improved since tiger started. this shouldnt really be debated. its been talked about for 10 years now, how golf cant simply be a 'country club' outing, but these guys needed to compete like athletes if they want to stick with tiger. they did, and they were holding their own. but when tiger is at his best, hes pretty much unbeatable. hes got the COMPLETE package, including the mental aspect.

im saying, this latest tiger buzz is an overreaction to 5 streight. he wont always play this well. the field in golf is phenomel, and they do step up. just watch, next time tiger doesnt win a major, or doesnt win 2 streight, theyll be saying 'whats wrong with tiger'.

[Tahoe]

Yes, he is that good. We are watching history.