Posnanski: Why do so many assume Tiger Woods will return to form one day?

Pos wrote something sort of similar before about this subject, but is expanding his thoughts more this time.

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/01/31/turning-back-time/

People just want to believe it's going to happen. It's like the need it to happen. And I suppose it still could. But athletes get old. They do not hold of time forever. They never turn back time for more than a few hours.

Think about it this way: For Woods to break Nickalus' record of 18 (which means five more majors), he has to, at age 35, have a better career than Mickelson has had for his entire carer. And Mickelson, no matter how much you hate him, is clearly one of the 20 best golfers of all time.

I say he wins two more majors over the next five years, spaced several years apart, then he has one Nicklaus-in-1986-at-August moment in his 40s. And finishes one short.

 

Joe could well be right. But there are as many reasons to disagree as agree with him. We are talking about a golfer who won damn near one-third of all majors for over a decade, and who's in his 30s, not 40s.

 

Will Tiger break Jack's record?

Let's get this party started!!!!

 

If it works out that way, the great, ultimately unanswerable question will be whether his personal problems derailed him or his body.

I think it was more the injuries, but I'm afraid it might be one of those ultimately unfulfiling arguments with no way to get to a right answer.

 

A debilitating injury is not what knocked him off form.

He's playing a sport where you can be runner-up in a major at age 59.

Because the "big name" always gets a disproportionate share of the betting money.

That's why.

 

Great column.

At most, he has one left in him.

All the kids from around the world that became fans, or picked up a driver just because they watched him play,the last 15 years or so are going to challenge him every week. The top 20 golfers in the world next year are going to be much, much better than the top 20 golfers 15 years ago.

 

Nicklaus won 6 majors after turning 35, right?

 

I was truly surprised to see the way Tiger putted last week. I don't remember Nicklaus putting that poorly at any time until he hit 50. Of course, I didn't see every tournament he played in. But I vividly recall one pro of the era telling me that what separated Nicklaus from the rest was that he never--emphasis on never--missed a three foot putt, and that he never wavered over a putt.

Right now Tiger, who is certainly more talented than Nicklaus ever was with short wedge and sand wedge play, has physical and personal problems that Jack didn't have to deal with at a comparable age. If he overcomes them, fans of Jack (like myself) are going to have to concede Tiger's superiority.

Jack won six after turning 35--I'm editing myself--two in 1975 (Masters & PGA), the year he turned 35.

 

Posnanski's point -- I think -- is less about what Tiger Woods might be capable of, and more about why we're so eager to believe that greatness (real greatness, the transcendent kind) should not be permanently diminished by age and time.

We don't want to see the man get old.

We want him to be 27 and fist-pumping, running after a putt with his finger pointed like a six shooter, and awkwardly high-fiving Steve Williams after he yo-yos a chip backward into the cup on No. 17 at Augusta, forever.

We sort of forget that brilliance is so hard to sustain, sometimes it just disappears and never returns.

 

Do you think sports fans were spoiled at all by baseball players, um, magically finding the fountain of youth for a few years there?

 

I want to see him struck by lightning while he tees off at Augusta.

 

I think that is more the point. Enjoy it while we we can.