GOAT

[BlackDiamondPar5]

 

 

The bottom line is this--- If Tiger's done winning, which is certainly a possibility, then he will never be the GOAT.

 

And on this

 

There can be no debate!

 

 

LOL! -- There also can be no debate that Poppy is a little sloppy.

[Playaway]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427493320' post='11230201']
^^ It's called pick a number that will back up your stats. IIRC-since Playaway brought up a great Arnie charge, Arnie threw away how many majors? I am not into research at the moment but wasn't there a Masters lost to Player because Arnie was already soaking in the adulation from the crowd? And a US Open when he had, I belive, a 7 strloke lead with nine to play and blew that one to Casper? And a Arnie comeback that was shrouded in controversy over, oh my!, a rules controversy when he defeated Venturi.
Yes, Isugolf the tournaments are 72 holes and I for one don't care how you get to the finish line. Ain't no pictures on the scorecard as the saying goes so finish with low score and you deserve the win.[color=#ff0000] This has to be about the first time I have ever heard someone say that Tiger [u][b]in his prime[/b][/u] was mentally weak but hey, it's WRX, you'll hear it all![/color]
[/quote]

LOL! What's his prime got to do with it? Has the mental state changed? He WAS mentally tough and now he is not? He won when he played great. He couldn't get it done when pressure was applied, aka lost the lead. That's mental.

[nbg352]

79 PGA Tour wins and 14 Majors.
Yep.....that is some weakness you've exposed there, playaway.........

[jons1]

[Playaway]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1427495566' post='11230461']
79 PGA Tour wins and 14 Majors.
Yep.....that is some weakness you've exposed there, playaway.........
[/quote]

One word: yips

100% mental

[nbg352]

[quote name='Playaway' timestamp='1427496512' post='11230569']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1427495566' post='11230461']
79 PGA Tour wins and 14 Majors.
Yep.....that is some weakness you've exposed there, playaway.........
[/quote]

One word: yips

100% mental
[/quote]
On this we agree, buddy!

[jons1]

Tiger will lose another year in the majors it seems. Can he really get five majors in his 40s?

[nbg352]

Tick Tock........

[oregongolfguy]

I think its too close to call......But here is how I see it assuming that tiger does not return to "form"

I don't think that the argument about the top of the competition has much merit for Nicklaus.....A lot of great names thrown into the mix, but you have to look at timelines here.....Palmer was a non factor when Nicklaus became one, Palmer did not win a single major after Nicklaus won his first. I would look at the dominate Nicklaus stretch as 1970-1980. Basically starting with his first major year and ending in 1980. Yes, I know he won the master in 1986 but he had only won two tournaments before that masters since 1980. He caught magic in a bottle but was done as a dominate player....so here is what I see....

Gary player - 4
Tom Watson - 4
Billy Casper - 1
Arnie Palmer - 0
Lee Trevino - 4
Seve Ballesteros - 2

Obviously some of these players won a lot more majors, but not during Jack's heyday. Really Lee Trevino and Nicklaus played in each others primes, and I would say that Player was on the downhill side and Watson was rising....

I am not sure how exactly to look at Tigers career. I would definitely start with 1997, then either stop at 2009 or if you want to count his good year in 2013 extend it to there.....and you would see...

Vijay SIngh - 3
Els - 2 or 3 depending on how cut it
Harrington - 3
Mickelson - 3 or 5 depending on how you cut it.

Not too much of a difference there really.....And for myself, the most interesting stats I have....Jack Nicklaus dominate stretch won just under 22% of the time...Tiger just under 25% of the time.....That is crazy....

honestly right now I see it as a push....But I think that if Tiger comes back and has another few really good seasons, maybe another couple major wins....In my mind he might be able to pass Jack without Passing Jack......

[bscinstnct]

^ho. Well done.

[indiangolfer]

[quote name='oregongolfguy' timestamp='1427499671' post='11230895']
I think its too close to call......But here is how I see it assuming that tiger does not return to "form"

I don't think that the argument about the top of the competition has much merit for Nicklaus.....A lot of great names thrown into the mix, but you have to look at timelines here.....Palmer was a non factor when Nicklaus became one, Palmer did not win a single major after Nicklaus won his first. I would look at the dominate Nicklaus stretch as 1970-1980. Basically starting with his first major year and ending in 1980. Yes, I know he won the master in 1986 but he had only won two tournaments before that masters since 1980. He caught magic in a bottle but was done as a dominate player....so here is what I see....

Gary player - 4
Tom Watson - 4
Billy Casper - 1
Arnie Palmer - 0
Lee Trevino - 4
Seve Ballesteros - 2

Obviously some of these players won a lot more majors, but not during Jack's heyday. Really Lee Trevino and Nicklaus played in each others primes, and I would say that Player was on the downhill side and Watson was rising....

I am not sure how exactly to look at Tigers career. I would definitely start with 1997, then either stop at 2009 or if you want to count his good year in 2013 extend it to there.....and you would see...

Vijay SIngh - 3
Els - 2 or 3 depending on how cut it
Harrington - 3
Mickelson - 3 or 5 depending on how you cut it.

Not too much of a difference there really.....And for myself, the most interesting stats I have....Jack Nicklaus dominate stretch won just under 22% of the time...Tiger just under 25% of the time.....That is crazy....

honestly right now I see it as a push....But I think that if Tiger comes back and has another few really good seasons, maybe another couple major wins....In my mind he might be able to pass Jack without Passing Jack......
[/quote]

Great analysis. Thanks

[PowderedToastMan]

I was thinking about Jack's 18 majors the other day and thought "how many of the modern pros have even played in 18 majors?"

Both players are both so absurdly good it's hardly even fair to compare. They are in their own universe.

[isaacbm]

[quote name='oregongolfguy' timestamp='1427499671' post='11230895']
I think its too close to call......But here is how I see it assuming that tiger does not return to "form"

I don't think that the argument about the top of the competition has much merit for Nicklaus.....A lot of great names thrown into the mix, but you have to look at timelines here.....Palmer was a non factor when Nicklaus became one, Palmer did not win a single major after Nicklaus won his first. I would look at the dominate Nicklaus stretch as 1970-1980. Basically starting with his first major year and ending in 1980. Yes, I know he won the master in 1986 but he had only won two tournaments before that masters since 1980. He caught magic in a bottle but was done as a dominate player....so here is what I see....

Gary player - 4
Tom Watson - 4
Billy Casper - 1
Arnie Palmer - 0
Lee Trevino - 4
Seve Ballesteros - 2

Obviously some of these players won a lot more majors, but not during Jack's heyday. Really Lee Trevino and Nicklaus played in each others primes, and I would say that Player was on the downhill side and Watson was rising....

I am not sure how exactly to look at Tigers career. I would definitely start with 1997, then either stop at 2009 or if you want to count his good year in 2013 extend it to there.....and you would see...

Vijay SIngh - 3
Els - 2 or 3 depending on how cut it
Harrington - 3
Mickelson - 3 or 5 depending on how you cut it.

Not too much of a difference there really.....And for myself, the most interesting stats I have....Jack Nicklaus dominate stretch won just under 22% of the time...Tiger just under 25% of the time.....That is crazy....

honestly right now I see it as a push....But I think that if Tiger comes back and has another few really good seasons, maybe another couple major wins....In my mind he might be able to pass Jack without Passing Jack......
[/quote]

Sorry, not quite accurate.

I'm not sure why you're picking 1970 as the year that Jack reached his prime.

He finished 2nd in the US open in 1960 and was a favorite. He won 7 majors and had 10 other top 3's before the end of 1967.
Palmer was Jacks main competition for all of those years!

I count Palmer as having 7 majors and 23 top 5's when Jack was in the field and a favorite.

Every single one of Trevino's 6 Majors and 10 other top 5's had Jack as one of the favorites

Literally all 8 of Watson's majors had Jack as a favorite and all but 3 of his top 5's

And Player?? 8 of his majors had Jack as a favorite and 13 of his top 5's.


I'm not even remotely a fan of using Majors as a way of comparing competition. But my point is that Nicklaus's prime was actually 22 years long. From 1960 to 1982, other than Palmer, he was the single biggest favorite to win every single week. He was either the odds makers top pick or second top pick literally for 85 majors in a row!! It's hard to even get your brain around a stat like that!


Even Tiger has "only" been the favorite from 1997-2009. And then again maybe in 2013. Nicklaus's prime was actually 10 full years longer than tigers.

Which is incredible in two ways. First holy crap was Nicklaus awesome for a long time! And Secondly, holy crap did tiger ever dominate for 13 years!

[tstephen]

[quote name='indiangolfer' timestamp='1427502663' post='11231173']
[quote name='oregongolfguy' timestamp='1427499671' post='11230895']
I think its too close to call......But here is how I see it assuming that tiger does not return to "form"

I don't think that the argument about the top of the competition has much merit for Nicklaus.....A lot of great names thrown into the mix, but you have to look at timelines here.....Palmer was a non factor when Nicklaus became one, Palmer did not win a single major after Nicklaus won his first. I would look at the dominate Nicklaus stretch as 1970-1980. Basically starting with his first major year and ending in 1980. Yes, I know he won the master in 1986 but he had only won two tournaments before that masters since 1980. He caught magic in a bottle but was done as a dominate player....so here is what I see....

Gary player - 4
Tom Watson - 4
Billy Casper - 1
Arnie Palmer - 0
Lee Trevino - 4
Seve Ballesteros - 2

Obviously some of these players won a lot more majors, but not during Jack's heyday. Really Lee Trevino and Nicklaus played in each others primes, and I would say that Player was on the downhill side and Watson was rising....

I am not sure how exactly to look at Tigers career. I would definitely start with 1997, then either stop at 2009 or if you want to count his good year in 2013 extend it to there.....and you would see...

Vijay SIngh - 3
Els - 2 or 3 depending on how cut it
Harrington - 3
Mickelson - 3 or 5 depending on how you cut it.

Not too much of a difference there really.....And for myself, the most interesting stats I have....Jack Nicklaus dominate stretch won just under 22% of the time...Tiger just under 25% of the time.....That is crazy....

honestly right now I see it as a push....But I think that if Tiger comes back and has another few really good seasons, maybe another couple major wins....In my mind he might be able to pass Jack without Passing Jack......
[/quote]

Great analysis. Thanks
[/quote]

Palmer won 2 majors after his loss to Jack in The 1962 US Open playoff.

Jack was 2nd in 4 of Watson's majors.

Jack was 2nd in 4 of Trevino's majors.

Tiger never had another top player in his era step up and take him down.

Just the likes of Superstars Rich Beem, Yang wins with May having the ultimate Tiger battle.

Arnie also won 3 Vardons and 2 money titles after Jack's first US Open.

Arnie also was PGA POTY and finished 2nd in majors 7 times after Jack's US Open.

2 of Padraig's were without Tiger in the field.

Phil was only player to give Tiger any run in The 2002 US Open.

[scratchswinger]

We can all agree that the only facts that have some from this very good discussion is that 1) Tiger was better when they were both at their best and 2) Jack was not as good for a longer period of time.

[PowderedToastMan]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1427510141' post='11232033']
[quote name='indiangolfer' timestamp='1427502663' post='11231173']
[quote name='oregongolfguy' timestamp='1427499671' post='11230895']
I think its too close to call......But here is how I see it assuming that tiger does not return to "form"

I don't think that the argument about the top of the competition has much merit for Nicklaus.....A lot of great names thrown into the mix, but you have to look at timelines here.....Palmer was a non factor when Nicklaus became one, Palmer did not win a single major after Nicklaus won his first. I would look at the dominate Nicklaus stretch as 1970-1980. Basically starting with his first major year and ending in 1980. Yes, I know he won the master in 1986 but he had only won two tournaments before that masters since 1980. He caught magic in a bottle but was done as a dominate player....so here is what I see....

Gary player - 4
Tom Watson - 4
Billy Casper - 1
Arnie Palmer - 0
Lee Trevino - 4
Seve Ballesteros - 2

Obviously some of these players won a lot more majors, but not during Jack's heyday. Really Lee Trevino and Nicklaus played in each others primes, and I would say that Player was on the downhill side and Watson was rising....

I am not sure how exactly to look at Tigers career. I would definitely start with 1997, then either stop at 2009 or if you want to count his good year in 2013 extend it to there.....and you would see...

Vijay SIngh - 3
Els - 2 or 3 depending on how cut it
Harrington - 3
Mickelson - 3 or 5 depending on how you cut it.

Not too much of a difference there really.....And for myself, the most interesting stats I have....Jack Nicklaus dominate stretch won just under 22% of the time...Tiger just under 25% of the time.....That is crazy....

honestly right now I see it as a push....But I think that if Tiger comes back and has another few really good seasons, maybe another couple major wins....In my mind he might be able to pass Jack without Passing Jack......
[/quote]

Great analysis. Thanks
[/quote]

Palmer won 2 majors after Jack had beaten Arnie in The 1962 US Open playoff.

Jack was 2nd in 4 of Watson's majors.

Jack was 2nd in 4 of Trevino's majors.

Tiger never had another top player in his era step up and take him down.

Just the likes of Superstars Rich Beem, Yang and May had the ultimate defeat to Tiger.

Arnie also won 3 Vardons and 2 money titles after Jack's first US Open.

Arnie also was PGA POTY and finished 2nd 7 times after Jack's US Open.
[/quote]
The current generation just doesn't understand how good Jack was, as well as the players he competed against. They also forget that these men are gentlemen and modest, and Jack wouldn't say "I'd beat Tiger in my heyday". Heck, the current generation already forgets how good Tiger was in 2000 (or even 2007). Some would have us believe Rory's dominance is on the level of Tiger.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

[quote name='scratchswinger' timestamp='1427510715' post='11232117']
We can all agree that the only facts that have some from this very good discussion is that 1) Tiger was better when they were both at their best and 2) Jack was not as good for a longer period of time.
[/quote]

18 v 14... that's really all that matters. This is probably another lost year, making it 8 years and counting without a major. The clock is running out quickly for Tiger to get there.

[tstephen]

[quote name='scratchswinger' timestamp='1427510715' post='11232117']
We can all agree that the only facts that have some from this very good discussion is that 1) Tiger was better when they were both at their best and 2) Jack was not as good for a longer period of time.
[/quote]

Johnny Miller's very best was better than Jack's.

SO WHAT!

[BlackDiamondPar5]

[quote name='jacksonalex' timestamp='1427510841' post='11232127']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1427510141' post='11232033']
[quote name='indiangolfer' timestamp='1427502663' post='11231173']
[quote name='oregongolfguy' timestamp='1427499671' post='11230895']
I think its too close to call......But here is how I see it assuming that tiger does not return to "form"

I don't think that the argument about the top of the competition has much merit for Nicklaus.....A lot of great names thrown into the mix, but you have to look at timelines here.....Palmer was a non factor when Nicklaus became one, Palmer did not win a single major after Nicklaus won his first. I would look at the dominate Nicklaus stretch as 1970-1980. Basically starting with his first major year and ending in 1980. Yes, I know he won the master in 1986 but he had only won two tournaments before that masters since 1980. He caught magic in a bottle but was done as a dominate player....so here is what I see....

Gary player - 4
Tom Watson - 4
Billy Casper - 1
Arnie Palmer - 0
Lee Trevino - 4
Seve Ballesteros - 2

Obviously some of these players won a lot more majors, but not during Jack's heyday. Really Lee Trevino and Nicklaus played in each others primes, and I would say that Player was on the downhill side and Watson was rising....

I am not sure how exactly to look at Tigers career. I would definitely start with 1997, then either stop at 2009 or if you want to count his good year in 2013 extend it to there.....and you would see...

Vijay SIngh - 3
Els - 2 or 3 depending on how cut it
Harrington - 3
Mickelson - 3 or 5 depending on how you cut it.

Not too much of a difference there really.....And for myself, the most interesting stats I have....Jack Nicklaus dominate stretch won just under 22% of the time...Tiger just under 25% of the time.....That is crazy....

honestly right now I see it as a push....But I think that if Tiger comes back and has another few really good seasons, maybe another couple major wins....In my mind he might be able to pass Jack without Passing Jack......
[/quote]

Great analysis. Thanks
[/quote]

Palmer won 2 majors after Jack had beaten Arnie in The 1962 US Open playoff.

Jack was 2nd in 4 of Watson's majors.

Jack was 2nd in 4 of Trevino's majors.

Tiger never had another top player in his era step up and take him down.

Just the likes of Superstars Rich Beem, Yang and May had the ultimate defeat to Tiger.

Arnie also won 3 Vardons and 2 money titles after Jack's first US Open.

Arnie also was PGA POTY and finished 2nd 7 times after Jack's US Open.
[/quote]
The current generation just doesn't understand how good Jack was, as well as the players he competed against. They also forget that these men are gentlemen and modest, and Jack wouldn't say "I'd beat Tiger in my heyday". Heck, the current generation already forgets how good Tiger was in 2000 (or even 2007). Some would have us believe Rory's dominance is on the level of Tiger.
[/quote]

So absolutely True. Those ardent Tiger is the GOAT supporters are likely in their late teens to late 20's/early 30's and all they know about is Tigers dominance, which is a very skewed perspective of history.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='scratchswinger' timestamp='1427510715' post='11232117']
We can all agree that the only facts that have some from this very good discussion is that 1) Tiger was better when they were both at their best and 2) Jack was not as good for a longer period of time.
[/quote]

Scratch's theme lately:

[Shilgy]

[quote name='Playaway' timestamp='1427494831' post='11230379']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1427493320' post='11230201']
^^ It's called pick a number that will back up your stats. IIRC-since Playaway brought up a great Arnie charge, Arnie threw away how many majors? I am not into research at the moment but wasn't there a Masters lost to Player because Arnie was already soaking in the adulation from the crowd? And a US Open when he had, I belive, a 7 strloke lead with nine to play and blew that one to Casper? And a Arnie comeback that was shrouded in controversy over, oh my!, a rules controversy when he defeated Venturi.
Yes, Isugolf the tournaments are 72 holes and I for one don't care how you get to the finish line. Ain't no pictures on the scorecard as the saying goes so finish with low score and you deserve the win.[color=#ff0000] This has to be about the first time I have ever heard someone say that Tiger [u][b]in his prime[/b][/u] was mentally weak but hey, it's WRX, you'll hear it all![/color]
[/quote]

LOL! What's his prime got to do with it? Has the mental state changed? He WAS mentally tough and now he is not? He won when he played great. He couldn't get it done when pressure was applied, aka lost the lead. That's mental.
[/quote]Just went back and read again. I initially thought, since it was the post immediately prior to yours, that you were referencing the question of who wins a match in their prime. For that I was wrong. But really, now it is a crime to only win when you play well? And if not playing well and you don't win you are mentally weak? Arnie, who you referenced as a tough mentally guy because he came back once that you redeemed threw away many more than Tiger ever did. How many majors or even regular events does anyone win when not playing well?

[Shilgy]

And for the record, I have previously stated that Jack is the goat, and Tiger is the best I have ever seen play this game. Both dominated their respective era like no one else has and truly intimidated their opponents. See comments attributed to Weiskopf and Els for that.

[Musky]

You ever see those screaming GOATS? Hilarious.

[playa]

So let me get this straight. Jack played strongr fields cause there were more multiple major winners? More multiple major winners.......lower overall number of major winners......deeper fields????
Let's put Jacks record in perspective. During his career he won twice as many majors as the second most, Watson on 9, followed by a swag of players on 5 plus. Tigers 14 looks far more impressive when compared to his contemporaries. Phil is the only guy to get to 5 during T'dubs reign, and then there is a big drop back to a couple of guys who have won 2. Rory has got to 4, but he has won while Tiger has been away.

T'dub has faced far deeper fields than the very small handful of guys capable of winning during Jacks career. T'dub = goat.

[ontgolfer]

[quote name='playa' timestamp='1427525785' post='11232985']
So let me get this straight. Jack played strongr fields cause there were more multiple major winners? More multiple major winners.......lower overall number of major winners......deeper fields????
Let's put Jacks record in perspective. During his career he won twice as many majors as the second most, Watson on 9, followed by a swag of players on 5 plus. Tigers 14 looks far more impressive when compared to his contemporaries. Phil is the only guy to get to 5 during T'dubs reign, and then there is a big drop back to a couple of guys who have won 2. Rory has got to 4, but he has won while Tiger has been away.

T'dub has faced far deeper fields than the very small handful of guys capable of winning during Jacks career. T'dub = goat.
[/quote]

[stratdogg_pro]

[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1427307000' post='11214087']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1427305070' post='11213799']
Put Phil, Ernie and VJ back in the Jack days and they beat Jack and his elite caliber competition.

Gary Player have 9 Majors now? He would have trouble reaching par 5s now. Same with Trevino.
[/quote]

Gary and Lee unable to reach par fives in two would hinder them from winning majors?

Yeah, they wouldn't be able to hang with them super long bombers' Mike Weir, Jim Furyk and Zach Johnson... oh wait...

Half the dudes on Tour today would wet themselves if they had to compete with the equipment from just twenty years ago...
[/quote]
nah......they would still hit the sweet spot regularly...they would just hit an extra club or 2 into the greens that's all

[tstephen]

[quote name='playa' timestamp='1427525785' post='11232985']
So let me get this straight. Jack played strongr fields cause there were more multiple major winners? More multiple major winners.......lower overall number of major winners......deeper fields????
Let's put Jacks record in perspective. During his career he won twice as many majors as the second most, Watson on 9, followed by a swag of players on 5 plus. Tigers 14 looks far more impressive when compared to his contemporaries. Phil is the only guy to get to 5 during T'dubs reign, and then there is a big drop back to a couple of guys who have won 2. Rory has got to 4, but he has won while Tiger has been away.

T'dub has faced far deeper fields than the very small handful of guys capable of winning during Jacks career. T'dub = goat.
[/quote]

Incorrect thinking on your part.

Padraig or Rory winning majors without Tiger...

Replace them with Tiger and they're still weak major wins?

Thanks for proving that Tiger's era of competition is the weakest ever.

Norman out of retirement and 59 yr old Watson at British Opens also prove this point.

Not to mention some 50+ old club pros are dominating PGA section play and even top 20 nationally.

If there were so many great young players nobody over 40 would even have a pray in PGA section tournaments.

[tstephen]

OB Keeler said money is gonna ruin sports.

Hogan said too much of it takes away the desire to win.

This is why there are not multiple major champs as in days past.

Padraig said winning 3 majors was the worse thing to ever happen to him.

[Playaway]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1427552385' post='11234013']
OB Keeler said money is gonna ruin sports.

Hogan said too much of it takes away the desire to win.

This is why there are not multiple major champs as in days past.

Padraig said winning 3 majors was the worse thing to ever happen to him.
[/quote]

Good post. Interesting Paddy statement. Is there an article where Paddy said that?

[Shilgy]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1427551913' post='11233969']
[quote name='playa' timestamp='1427525785' post='11232985']
So let me get this straight. Jack played strongr fields cause there were more multiple major winners? More multiple major winners.......lower overall number of major winners......deeper fields????
Let's put Jacks record in perspective. During his career he won twice as many majors as the second most, Watson on 9, followed by a swag of players on 5 plus. Tigers 14 looks far more impressive when compared to his contemporaries. Phil is the only guy to get to 5 during T'dubs reign, and then there is a big drop back to a couple of guys who have won 2. Rory has got to 4, but he has won while Tiger has been away.

T'dub has faced far deeper fields than the very small handful of guys capable of winning during Jacks career. T'dub = goat.
[/quote]

Incorrect thinking on your part.

Padraig or Rory winning majors without Tiger...

Replace them with Tiger and they're still weak major wins?

Thanks for proving that Tiger's era of competition is the weakest ever.

Norman out of retirement and 59 yr old Watson at British Opens also prove this point.

Not to mention some 50+ old club pros are dominating PGA section play and even top 20 nationally.

If there were so many great young players nobody over 40 would even have a pray in PGA section tournaments.
[/quote]Two things that I don't recall are Norman or Watson winning those events at an advanced age. Please refresh my memory. Every era had old guys make a run but not win so that means nothing. And what do club pros have to do with depth on tour? Are you assuming that those that don't make the tour become club pros? Maybe years ago they did but the position is so poorly paid now not many do. There are probably fewer good club pros playing now than in the past.