Jordan Speith - Weak Era

[hwc1954]

[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437539825' post='11997370']Would anyone take Spieth versus prime Jack or Tiger? Honestly? It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

That's not really a fair question. Spieth is only 21 years old and just starting his career. The comparison would have to be to Tiger or Jack at age 21.

Tiger won the Masters at Spieth's age, but Spieth got his second major at a younger age than Woods. At 21, Jack finished second in the US Open as an amateur and turnned pro later that year. He won his first major (US OPEN) at age 22.

So, it's fair to say that Spieth is in the ballpark of the two best golfers of all time at a similar age. That's all we can really judge right now. Spieth has the mental approach to the game to win a lot of tournaments (and to continue to improve as he matures physically and gains experience).

[dan360]

[quote name='dieselmd' timestamp='1437525521' post='11995784']
It's the final match of the Ryder Cup with the tie in a balance, last game out. Who on the U.S. team do you want as anchor?
[/quote]

Patrick Reed.

[FlyPhish]

[quote name='hwc1954' timestamp='1437541137' post='11997442']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437539825' post='11997370']Would anyone take Spieth versus prime Jack or Tiger? Honestly? It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

That's not really a fair question. Spieth is only 21 years old and just starting his career. The comparison would have to be to Tiger or Jack at age 21.

Tiger won the Masters at Spieth's age, but Spieth got his second major at a younger age than Woods. At 21, Jack finished second in the US Open as an amateur and turnned pro later that year. He won his first major (US OPEN) at age 22.

So, it's fair to say that Spieth is in the ballpark of the two best golfers of all time at a similar age. That's all we can really judge right now. Spieth has the mental approach to the game to win a lot of tournaments (and to continue to improve as he matures physically and gains experience).
[/quote]

Key phrase: It may happen yet, but so far, no.

[jmvargas]

the OP seems to be living in the past and cannot see what is pretty obvious to those who have kept an open mind thru all these years of watching the best players getting younger and a bit better all the time...

the crop of jordan spieth,jason day,rory mclroy.etc etc.. are the best i have seen for a long time and am sure there are many more waiting in the wings judging from the amateurs who just made the cut in the british open and are the future of golf...

am also sure there will be older players who will win some of the time but for the most part these young ones will be the dominating ones for years to come and that's a good sign...

golf has never been better than it is now and and i for one will be anxiously looking forward to it and for the next young buck to emerge...

[hell_is_chrome]

I've been watching and playing golf since 1989 and I've never been more excited about the professional game than I am right now.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='hell_is_chrome' timestamp='1437542748' post='11997560']
I've been watching and playing golf since 1989 and I've never been more excited about the professional game than I am right now.
[/quote]

No kidding. Great years ahead. And way beyond Rory and Jordan. So much talent out there right now its incredible. It will be fun to be a fan of tbe game!

[1in2out_hitting3]

[quote name='Yrrdead' timestamp='1437462009' post='11990576']Maybe you missed this article about Speith's stats.

http://www.golfwrx.com/310268/a-statistical-analysis-of-what-makes-jordan-spieth-great/[/quote]

Bingo

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='hell_is_chrome' timestamp='1437542748' post='11997560']
I've been watching and playing golf since 1989 and I've never been more excited about the professional game than I am right now.
[/quote]

I agree. The leaderboards on the last day of the last two majors hopefully have been a glimpse into what we're going to see in the next few years. Tightly bunched with a multitude of potential winners. I just hope there are more of those than this years Masters. It was like when Tiger was dominating, no drama on the final day.

[King_Slender]

Golf has stronger fields than it ever has - the players are better athletes, the equipment is better to further level the playing field, etc. The notion that Jack had the strongest fields to contend with is pretty funny. All of the things that Jack complains about (equipment, the ball) has allowed players that he would consider "less worthy" to compete week in and week out with guys like Rory and Spieth - it has elevated the play of everyone, so a guy like Jack and Tiger can't separate themselves based just on length.

You have to be a better player all around now, which is why a guy like Spieth who does everything well, but maybe nothing spectacular, is having the most success. You can't just bomb your way to victory every week on tour (though it can happen from time to time).

Add to that there are more players competing and the strength of the fields increases further. There are WAY more players from around the world (Asia, Australia, South Africa - not just Gary Player, etc.) compared to Jack's day. It's like saying Babe Ruth was the best player ever when black players weren't even allowed in the Major Leagues.

[nicebutdim]

Its been an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed lots of the feedback, apart from a few meanies! But happy to stand in front of a truck and take the hit.

From what I can deduce the issue to do with era and strength is a relative one versus an absolute one. It doesn't seem presently that there are more fantastic players at the ATG level then there have been throughout history, just maybe greater depth of top players throughout the field so more chance of someone making a charge and the need for slightly better all round play to take a major. Still Mcilroy has proven that truly elite generational play can dismantle all the other golfers despite this depth of 'talent'.

The argument that players now are stronger than players before due to equipment changes, training techniques and coaching is obvious as in ABSOLUTE terms athletic performances tend to progress. However this is again only in absolute terms as I strongly believe that latent athletic potential has not changed drastically In recent years (think Barry Sanders and George Foreman). Does the the 2015 version of Sergio Garcia whip the 2005 versions? Is he a better player? Things like form, confidence and swing changes play a big factor but all things being equal yes he probably has improved a bit despite the mental scars. That is the progression of sport. But in relative terms with what was available then versus now in terms of performance benchmarks and training methods I think he is level pegging at best.

The thing that truly great players like Jack and Tiger have are the athleticism, mindset, and will to win.... this transcends time and a young Jack Nicklaus walks on to today's tour with today's resources and does the business IMO. For instance someone would have taught him how to chip because he would NEED to, and that would have complemented his ball striking and elevated his performances tremendously. So in absolute terms there has of course been a progression but in relative terms I see no real difference now between what has gone before, apart from a deeper pack of solid players better schooled in how to elevate their play. But as we can see with Day, Johnson, Fowler and Sergio this is still not enough to guarantee getting it done in Majors. You need a champions mind to do this, and/or some luck.

[BarronDDS]

Competition and talent are as good as ever!!

[hwc1954]

[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437541546' post='11997474']Key phrase: It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

Right. I don't even understand talking about a "Spieth era", let alone trying to decide if it's strong or weak. If there were to be a Spieth era, we won't know for another five or ten years. And, a Spieth era, were it to be, would play out over the next 20 years. Then, we can look back and decide if it was strong or weak.

With Rory McIlroy and Jordan Spieth leading the post-Tiger charge, it's certainly an exciting time for golf. Both have made a mark at the starts of their careers. Only time will tell how they sustain that.

[puttingmatt]

The thread should be renamed, Jordan Spieth "PEAK ERA".

[nicebutdim]

[quote name='hwc1954' timestamp='1437568370' post='11998416']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437541546' post='11997474']Key phrase: It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

Right. I don't even understand talking about a "Spieth era", let alone trying to decide if it's strong or weak. If there were to be a Spieth era, we won't know for another five or ten years. And, a Spieth era, were it to be, would play out over the next 20 years. Then, we can look back and decide if it was strong or weak.

With Rory McIlroy and Jordan Spieth leading the post-Tiger charge, it's certainly an exciting time for golf. Both have made a mark at the starts of their careers. Only time will tell how they sustain that.
[/quote]

I think Mcilroy is a very unique talent in the history of the game. He can play the game as good or better than anyone who ever lived, but is extremely mercurial. People may argue that he doesn't win as much as Snead, Jack and Tiger due to the depth of the field, but its clear that its because Rory is very inconsistent. Dominating a tournament one week, then missing a cut the next. If he were consistently posting top 5's then the argument that his competition is depriving him of more W's could be made.

Its hard to place Rory at present because of this, which makes him a far different golfer to the standard ATG's. You almost feel that he will go the way of Ballesteros one day and just lose "it" never again to be found.

[BrickDaFunk]

I don't follow the premise of this thread...but I can add that the era isn't weak as there is a lot of talent on the professional tours. To me, it seems that nobody else can match the "fire" the burns within Spieth...and that is why I root for him every tournament he enters.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

Does nothing incredibly...tied the scoring record at the Masters...ok

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='nicebutdim' timestamp='1437566788' post='11998286']
Its been an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed lots of the feedback, apart from a few meanies! But happy to stand in front of a truck and take the hit.

From what I can deduce the issue to do with era and strength is a relative one versus an absolute one. It doesn't seem presently that there are more fantastic players at the ATG level then there have been throughout history, just maybe greater depth of top players throughout the field so more chance of someone making a charge and the need for slightly better all round play to take a major. Still Mcilroy has proven that truly elite generational play can dismantle all the other golfers despite this depth of 'talent'.

The argument that players now are stronger than players before due to equipment changes, training techniques and coaching is obvious as in ABSOLUTE terms athletic performances tend to progress. However this is again only in absolute terms as I strongly believe that latent athletic potential has not changed drastically In recent years (think Barry Sanders and George Foreman). Does the the 2015 version of Sergio Garcia whip the 2005 versions? Is he a better player? Things like form, confidence and swing changes play a big factor but all things being equal yes he probably has improved a bit despite the mental scars. That is the progression of sport. But in relative terms with what was available then versus now in terms of performance benchmarks and training methods I think he is level pegging at best.

The thing that truly great players like Jack and Tiger have are the athleticism, mindset, and will to win.... this transcends time and a young Jack Nicklaus walks on to today's tour with today's resources and does the business IMO. For instance someone would have taught him how to chip because he would NEED to, and that would have complemented his ball striking and elevated his performances tremendously. So in absolute terms there has of course been a progression but in relative terms I see no real difference now between what has gone before, apart from a deeper pack of solid players better schooled in how to elevate their play. But as we can see with Day, Johnson, Fowler and Sergio this is still not enough to guarantee getting it done in Majors. You need a champions mind to do this, and/or some luck.
[/quote]

I think that is pretty well stated. You can essentially sum it up by saying Tiger and Jack would have been great in any era. And maybe Speith or Rory could join that group.

I do however think the athleticism angle is overblown. You can be a great golfer without being that great athlete. If pure athleticism was the determining factor there wouldn't be a thread asking if DJ would ever win a major, it would be how soon he would break Jack's record.

[nochct1]

[quote name='hwc1954' timestamp='1437541137' post='11997442']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437539825' post='11997370']Would anyone take Spieth versus prime Jack or Tiger? Honestly? It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

That's not really a fair question. Spieth is only 21 years old and just starting his career. The comparison would have to be to Tiger or Jack at age 21.

Tiger won the Masters at Spieth's age, but Spieth got his second major at a younger age than Woods. At 21, Jack finished second in the US Open as an amateur and turnned pro later that year. He won his first major (US OPEN) at age 22.

So, it's fair to say that Spieth is in the ballpark of the two best golfers of all time at a similar age. That's all we can really judge right now. Spieth has the mental approach to the game to win a lot of tournaments (and to continue to improve as he matures physically and gains experience).
[/quote]

The comparison should start based on when they turn pro, not age. For example, both Tiger and Jack turned pro at 20. Rory turned pro at age 18. By the time he's 21, he's been on tour for three years, while Tiger and Jack are at 1 year. Same with Speith, he turned pro at 19.

It doesn't take away from Jordan's achievements at all. He's awesome to watch. But you can't compare timeframe properly based on age.

[Bob57]

The weakest era in golf was easily 1997-2005. Els, Singh, Mickelson were about the extent of it. Tiger saved golf as it was headed to the who cares status due to golfers on the downsides of their careers or ones that really didn't have great careers like couples or love.. Only Singh had a one really good year. So to some extent Tiger built much of his legacy on has beens or never were golfers.

Jordan is definitely playing against a numerically higher number of talented young golfers. Nicklaus made his record beating and losing to hall of famers. I can't remember how many majors tiger beat Mickelson in. While jack came in second 19 times to the palmers, Watsons, trevinos etc. he also beat many of those same golfers 18 times..

As an aside I wonder if tiger is getting appearance money overseas anymore..

[ghoul31]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437571655' post='11998726']
[quote name='hwc1954' timestamp='1437541137' post='11997442']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437539825' post='11997370']Would anyone take Spieth versus prime Jack or Tiger? Honestly? It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

That's not really a fair question. Spieth is only 21 years old and just starting his career. The comparison would have to be to Tiger or Jack at age 21.

Tiger won the Masters at Spieth's age, but Spieth got his second major at a younger age than Woods. At 21, Jack finished second in the US Open as an amateur and turnned pro later that year. He won his first major (US OPEN) at age 22.

So, it's fair to say that Spieth is in the ballpark of the two best golfers of all time at a similar age. That's all we can really judge right now. Spieth has the mental approach to the game to win a lot of tournaments (and to continue to improve as he matures physically and gains experience).
[/quote]

The comparison should start based on when they turn pro, not age. For example, both Tiger and Jack turned pro at 20. Rory turned pro at age 18. By the time he's 21, he's been on tour for three years, while Tiger and Jack are at 1 year. Same with Speith, he turned pro at 19.

It doesn't take away from Jordan's achievements at all. He's awesome to watch. But you can't compare timeframe properly based on age.
[/quote]

That makes no sense. He signed a piece of paper saying he was a pro earlier, so now he has to win more majors to be considered as good?

[nochct1]

[quote name='Bob57' timestamp='1437572297' post='11998794']
The weakest era in golf was easily 1997-2005. Els, Singh, Mickelson were about the extent of it. Tiger saved golf as it was headed to the who cares status due to golfers on the downsides of their careers or ones that really didn't have great careers like couples or love.. Only Singh had a one really good year. So to some extent Tiger built much of his legacy on has beens or never were golfers.

Jordan is definitely playing against a numerically higher number of talented young golfers. Nicklaus made his record beating and losing to hall of famers. I can't remember how many majors tiger beat Mickelson in. While jack came in second 19 times to the palmers, Watsons, trevinos etc. he also beat many of those same golfers 18 times..

As an aside I wonder if tiger is getting appearance money overseas anymore..
[/quote]

How do you include Palmer and Watson in the same era?

Was 1962 to 1970 a better era than 1997-2005?

[Bear Trader]

Old Phil with arthritis finally won at the Open and event he always missed the cut in during his prime. If this is not more proof this era is a joke what else is there?

[hwc1954]

I[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437571655' post='11998726']
The comparison should start based on when they turn pro, not age. For example, both Tiger and Jack turned pro at 20. Rory turned pro at age 18. By the time he's 21, he's been on tour for three years, while Tiger and Jack are at 1 year. Same with Speith, he turned pro at 19.

It doesn't take away from Jordan's achievements at all. He's awesome to watch. But you can't compare timeframe properly based on age.
[/quote]

But...

Jack and Tiger spent several years winning the US Amateur, so it's not like they were late bloomers on the major golf scene. Spieth passed up the final three years of college eligibility, when he would have been playing the US Amateur, to get his learning experience on tour. All three ended up in the same place... contending for pro majors at age 20 or 21.

Does that give them a career advantage? Hard to say. With very few exceptions (Nicklaus and Player), there seems to a pretty hard limit of 10 to 12 years at the top of the game (winning majors). It may be that it's simply impossible to sustain that intensity and drive for more than a decade.

[nochct1]

[quote name='ghoul31' timestamp='1437572707' post='11998844']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437571655' post='11998726']
[quote name='hwc1954' timestamp='1437541137' post='11997442']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437539825' post='11997370']Would anyone take Spieth versus prime Jack or Tiger? Honestly? It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

That's not really a fair question. Spieth is only 21 years old and just starting his career. The comparison would have to be to Tiger or Jack at age 21.

Tiger won the Masters at Spieth's age, but Spieth got his second major at a younger age than Woods. At 21, Jack finished second in the US Open as an amateur and turnned pro later that year. He won his first major (US OPEN) at age 22.

So, it's fair to say that Spieth is in the ballpark of the two best golfers of all time at a similar age. That's all we can really judge right now. Spieth has the mental approach to the game to win a lot of tournaments (and to continue to improve as he matures physically and gains experience).
[/quote]

The comparison should start based on when they turn pro, not age. For example, both Tiger and Jack turned pro at 20. Rory turned pro at age 18. By the time he's 21, he's been on tour for three years, while Tiger and Jack are at 1 year. Same with Speith, he turned pro at 19.

It doesn't take away from Jordan's achievements at all. He's awesome to watch. But you can't compare timeframe properly based on age.
[/quote]

That makes no sense. He signed a piece of paper saying he was a pro earlier, so now he has to win more majors to be considered as good?
[/quote]

Doesn't make sense?! So you will compare Player A to Player B, even though Player B can compete in half the number of events?

Here's an example.

Player A turns pro at age 18. By the end of their 4th season, they have played around 80-100 pro events. And they have competed in 16 majors as a professional.

Player B turns pro at age 21, or three years after player A. They have competed in the same number of events after 4 seasons. But they are of different ages at the end of their 4th season.

Using the example above, how would their age provide a better comparison? Player B would have played significantly less events by age 22.

The age comparison has worked well for Tiger and Jack because they were around the same age when they turned pro.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437571655' post='11998726']
[quote name='hwc1954' timestamp='1437541137' post='11997442']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437539825' post='11997370']Would anyone take Spieth versus prime Jack or Tiger? Honestly? It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

That's not really a fair question. Spieth is only 21 years old and just starting his career. The comparison would have to be to Tiger or Jack at age 21.

Tiger won the Masters at Spieth's age, but Spieth got his second major at a younger age than Woods. At 21, Jack finished second in the US Open as an amateur and turnned pro later that year. He won his first major (US OPEN) at age 22.

So, it's fair to say that Spieth is in the ballpark of the two best golfers of all time at a similar age. That's all we can really judge right now. Spieth has the mental approach to the game to win a lot of tournaments (and to continue to improve as he matures physically and gains experience).
[/quote]

The comparison should start based on when they turn pro, not age. For example, both Tiger and Jack turned pro at 20. Rory turned pro at age 18. By the time he's 21, he's been on tour for three years, while Tiger and Jack are at 1 year. Same with Speith, he turned pro at 19.

It doesn't take away from Jordan's achievements at all. He's awesome to watch. But you can't compare timeframe properly based on age.
[/quote]
Shorter: Tiger still better! NaNaNa, Naboboo

You're RELENTLESS. If tbe age/when they turmed pro numbers were reversed. You'd argue the other way.

[ghoul31]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437573641' post='11998940']
[quote name='ghoul31' timestamp='1437572707' post='11998844']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437571655' post='11998726']
[quote name='hwc1954' timestamp='1437541137' post='11997442']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437539825' post='11997370']Would anyone take Spieth versus prime Jack or Tiger? Honestly? It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

That's not really a fair question. Spieth is only 21 years old and just starting his career. The comparison would have to be to Tiger or Jack at age 21.

Tiger won the Masters at Spieth's age, but Spieth got his second major at a younger age than Woods. At 21, Jack finished second in the US Open as an amateur and turnned pro later that year. He won his first major (US OPEN) at age 22.

So, it's fair to say that Spieth is in the ballpark of the two best golfers of all time at a similar age. That's all we can really judge right now. Spieth has the mental approach to the game to win a lot of tournaments (and to continue to improve as he matures physically and gains experience).
[/quote]

The comparison should start based on when they turn pro, not age. For example, both Tiger and Jack turned pro at 20. Rory turned pro at age 18. By the time he's 21, he's been on tour for three years, while Tiger and Jack are at 1 year. Same with Speith, he turned pro at 19.

It doesn't take away from Jordan's achievements at all. He's awesome to watch. But you can't compare timeframe properly based on age.
[/quote]

That makes no sense. He signed a piece of paper saying he was a pro earlier, so now he has to win more majors to be considered as good?
[/quote]

Doesn't make sense?! So you will compare Player A to Player B, even though Player B can compete in half the number of events?

Here's an example.

Player A turns pro at age 18. By the end of their 4th season, they have played around 80-100 pro events. And they have competed in 16 majors as a professional.

Player B turns pro at age 21, or three years after player A. They have competed in the same number of events after 4 seasons. But they are of different ages at the end of their 4th season.

Using the example above, how would their age provide a better comparison? Player B would have played significantly less events by age 22.

The age comparison has worked well for Tiger and Jack because they were around the same age when they turned pro.
[/quote]

Nobody is going to win a major 18 or 19, so you can throw that out
Tiger woods played in 3 majors when he was 20 and 3 majors when he was 21
So I don't see the big difference

[DTXgolfer12]

This is the equivalent to the "Babe Ruth would be the best player in MLB if he played today" argument. The answer is no, no he wouldn't.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='Bob57' timestamp='1437572297' post='11998794']
The weakest era in golf was easily 1997-2005. Els, Singh, Mickelson were about the extent of it. Tiger saved golf as it was headed to the who cares status due to golfers on the downsides of their careers or ones that really didn't have great careers like couples or love.. Only Singh had a one really good year. So to some extent Tiger built much of his legacy on has beens or never were golfers.

Jordan is definitely playing against a numerically higher number of talented young golfers. Nicklaus made his record beating and losing to hall of famers. I can't remember how many majors tiger beat Mickelson in. While jack came in second 19 times to the palmers, Watsons, trevinos etc. he also beat many of those same golfers 18 times..

As an aside I wonder if tiger is getting appearance money overseas anymore..
[/quote]Funny how the more good players there are the fewer great players there seem to be. I wonder if there is a correlation? Hmmm... The following is just a short list of those that were out there. Everyone is all gaga over the current era but their accomplishments are no better than the following. In 1997:
Norman was 42
Faldo was 40
Montgomerie was just 34
Langer was 40
Couples was 38
Lehman was 38
Woosnam was 39
Love was 33
O'Meara was 40
Furyk was 27
Westwood was 24
Goosen was 28
Cink was 24
Ogilvy was 20
Toms was 30
Cabrera was 28
Stricker was 30
Allenby was 26
Duval 26

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='Bob57' timestamp='1437572297' post='11998794']
The weakest era in golf was easily 1997-2005. Els, Singh, Mickelson were about the extent of it. Tiger saved golf as it was headed to the who cares status due to golfers on the downsides of their careers or ones that really didn't have great careers like couples or love.. Only Singh had a one really good year. So to some extent Tiger built much of his legacy on has beens or never were golfers.


[/quote]

Again, I want someone to explain his scoring average. He had several seasons under 68 average (2000, 2007, 2008) and plenty of seasons below 68.5 average. Rory and Spieth's best stuff so far is around 68.8-68.9 average. Spieth is still young enough that you could say he has the potential to go lower in the future for sure. Rory could too of course. But the fact is Tiger's scoring average was good enough that it would not have mattered who you put in his era.

[nochct1]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1437576220' post='11999228']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1437571655' post='11998726']
[quote name='hwc1954' timestamp='1437541137' post='11997442']
[quote name='FlyPhish' timestamp='1437539825' post='11997370']Would anyone take Spieth versus prime Jack or Tiger? Honestly? It may happen yet, but so far, no.
[/quote]

That's not really a fair question. Spieth is only 21 years old and just starting his career. The comparison would have to be to Tiger or Jack at age 21.

Tiger won the Masters at Spieth's age, but Spieth got his second major at a younger age than Woods. At 21, Jack finished second in the US Open as an amateur and turnned pro later that year. He won his first major (US OPEN) at age 22.

So, it's fair to say that Spieth is in the ballpark of the two best golfers of all time at a similar age. That's all we can really judge right now. Spieth has the mental approach to the game to win a lot of tournaments (and to continue to improve as he matures physically and gains experience).
[/quote]

The comparison should start based on when they turn pro, not age. For example, both Tiger and Jack turned pro at 20. Rory turned pro at age 18. By the time he's 21, he's been on tour for three years, while Tiger and Jack are at 1 year. Same with Speith, he turned pro at 19.

It doesn't take away from Jordan's achievements at all. He's awesome to watch. But you can't compare timeframe properly based on age.
[/quote]
Shorter: Tiger still better! NaNaNa, Naboboo

You're RELENTLESS. If tbe age/when they turmed pro numbers were reversed. You'd argue the other way.
[/quote]

I'm just providing some facts, which people on this site tend to overlook. It's not a Tiger / Jack thing. It's for any sport. Take basketball. Compare Lebron at 25 vs someone who went to college for 4 years. It's a stupid comparison.