The Secret History of Tiger Woods -

[Dave230]

Good point about Hagen. Hagen won 11 of 3 possible majors available to him. If you take the Masters out of Woods and Nicklaus' totals then it's:

 

12 Nicklaus

11 Hagen

10 Woods

[jffuller]

I can't believe I'm jumping back into this, but I think these numbers from the scoring average chart are pretty telling. If we call 2000-2005 peak Tiger for the sake of simplicity, there are 3x the golfers shooting under par on a weekly basis. In 2000 the 150th scoring average was 71.87, so they were, on average, under par for each tournament. In 2005 the 175th player averaged 71.93, so nearly under par each tournament. In 1980 the the 50th player averaged 71.88. 3 times the players averaged under par in 2000 that did in 1950. And that number was even greater in 2005. Pretty telling

 

And as far as majors being the only benchmark, I get that team sports aren't a fair comparison, but it brings up an interesting point. No one is jumping up and down to tell me Trent Dilfer is a better QB than Dan Marino, and Jordan is nearly universally regarded as the best basketball player of all time, not Russell. The entire body of work gets considered. On the golf front no one raised their hand to say that Padraig Harrington is a better golfer than Johnny Miller. 3 majors vs. 2, but you don't get to count Johnny's 25 pga tour wins vs. Padraig's 6.

[drewtaylor21]

web.com? really??

yes, really. I did not say the web.com guys were better than Jack and Watson. I said they are better than 50-125 from that previous era.

 

Here's a perfect example of how deep the current world of golf is. Wyatt finished one shot out of a playoff at Zurich, closing with a 64 on a sponsor's exemption. Anyone still want to argue that it's easier to win in today's game??

 

 

 

Well yeah, if the 431st ranked player can almost win it must be easy.

 

I knew someone was going to say that lol :)

 

[tsecor]

No that's one of the points I've been making this whole time - the guys in the 50-150 range today are capable of winning. That was the whole point of the scoring average chart - the gap is narrowed and more guys can win. In 1980, #150 had to play out of his mind to win or compete. Today #150 is on the heels of the scoring average of the top guys, so the gap they need to cover to compete and win is much smaller, much more realistic. They get hot for one week and they can win. That wasn't the case 30 years ago, forget 70+ years ago. If #150 had a hot week in 1960, it means he sold a bunch of insurance.

 

In Tiger's era, there were more guys who "proved" they were capable of winning a major. In Jack's era only had a handful of guys who had demonstrated major-wining capability.

what have you been watching? hilarious

[tsecor]

web.com? really??

yes, really. I did not say the web.com guys were better than Jack and Watson. I said they are better than 50-125 from that previous era.

 

Here's a perfect example of how deep the current world of golf is. Wyatt finished one shot out of a playoff at Zurich, closing with a 64 on a sponsor's exemption. Anyone still want to argue that it's easier to win in today's game??

 

 

 

Well yeah, if the 431st ranked player can almost win it must be easy.

 

easier to win today? i agree....no tough competition but a few at the top......

[Shilgy]

No that's one of the points I've been making this whole time - the guys in the 50-150 range today are capable of winning. That was the whole point of the scoring average chart - the gap is narrowed and more guys can win. In 1980, #150 had to play out of his mind to win or compete. Today #150 is on the heels of the scoring average of the top guys, so the gap they need to cover to compete and win is much smaller, much more realistic. They get hot for one week and they can win. That wasn't the case 30 years ago, forget 70+ years ago. If #150 had a hot week in 1960, it means he sold a bunch of insurance.

 

In Tiger's era, there were more guys who "proved" they were capable of winning a major. In Jack's era only had a handful of guys who had demonstrated major-wining capability.

what have you been watching? hilarious

So you have stated that in Jack's era a handful of guys won a lot of majors so that was your "proof" that it was harder to win a major. You can look at it both ways-neither side will ever convince the other but to laugh or or deride a response as hilarious is, well, hilarious I guess. Let's say in Jack's era 5 guys won most of the majors. Did they do that because they were so good or because there was no other really good competitors? On the flip side you have Tigers era where quite a few players won 1-4 majors so there were, in fact, more guys that "proved" they could win a major. They did so you cannot deny that.

[Shilgy]

web.com? really??

yes, really. I did not say the web.com guys were better than Jack and Watson. I said they are better than 50-125 from that previous era.

 

Here's a perfect example of how deep the current world of golf is. Wyatt finished one shot out of a playoff at Zurich, closing with a 64 on a sponsor's exemption. Anyone still want to argue that it's easier to win in today's game??

 

 

 

Well yeah, if the 431st ranked player can almost win it must be easy.

 

easier to win today? i agree....no tough competition but a few at the top......

?? That is what you have been saying about Jack's era saying it was more difficult because there was no tough competition as the top few dominated. :)

[norge5]

I still don't get the easier to win majors argument? There can only be one winner of the tournament.

[Forged4ever]

In Tiger's era, there were more guys who proved that they were capable of winning a major. In Jack's era only had a handful of guys who had demonstrated major-wining capability.

Bro, in my simple a** mind, the word "proven" means been there done it, won it-

 

These are the Gents from Jack's era(1962-1986) who had "proven major winning capability"....

 

1) Gary Player(9)

2) Tom Watson(8)

3) Arnie(7)

4) Lee Trevino(6)

5) Seve(5)

6) Raymond Floyd(4)

7) Billy Casper(3)

8) Hale Irwin(3)

9) Julius Boros(3)

10) Larry Nelson(3)

11) Tony Jacklin(2)

12) Johnny Miller(2)

13) David Graham(2)

14) Hubert Green(2)

15) Save Stockton(2)

16) Tommy Aaron(1)

17) George Archer(1)

18) Gay Brewer(1)

19) Charles Coody(1)

20) Bob Golby(1)

21) Craig Stadler(1)

22) Lou Graham(1)

23) Orville Moody(1)

24) Jerry Pate(1)

25) Ken Venturi(1)

26) Bob Charles(1)

27) Roberto DeVicenzo(1)

28) Tony Lema(1)

29) Bill Rodgers(1)

30) Al Geiberger(1)

31) Don January(1)

32) John Mahaffey(1)

33) Bobby Nichols(1)

34) Tom Kite(1)

35) Bob Charles(1)

36) Tom Weiskopf(1)

37) Dave Marr(1)

39) Ben Crenshaw(1)* *Ben's second green coat came post-Jack

 

A "handfull"???

 

LMAO

 

Okey dokey then :)

 

As I've rambled on about previously, there is only one way to "prove" It...

 

You wanna be the Man????

 

You gottsa beat the Man!!!!

 

Wooooooooooo

 

Oh, and my .01 worth about all this talk of diferent eras, different gear, different swings, different tracks, yada, yada yada....

 

Yea, all that's relative however you all know what I'm gonna say means the absolute MOST and it transcends eras, swings, gear and anything else ya wanna argue about~

 

And the Top Champions, easily every man in the Top-10 have it in spades and you could drop them in ANY era and they would win because THAT is what Champions do-

 

They arrive, they prepare, they ADAPT and they WIN-

 

These men were the STRONGEST MENTALY and had the most HEART!!

 

THAT Plays anywhere, anyway, anyday BroMeisters...

 

You can take that to the bank!!!

 

And Bro, just between you and I, to me, the majority of guys in Tiger's era didn't prove s*** except that they could win a ton of money.

 

"Proving" that they could win Majors???

 

I'm too tired and sore to go through the Tigster's era like I did Jack's though I'll let someone else do that if they would like.

 

Thanks CD for taking the time to post your thoughts!!

 

I wish ya the Best this season :)

 

Med time then bed time :)

 

Have a great evening Gents :)

 

My Best,

RP

[nochct1]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

 

 

 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

Tiger beats the crap out of

 

Anybody in his prime

 

Nobody would contest that.

 

6 Majors in 3 years.

 

For perspective, "phenom" Rory won

 

3 Majors is 3 years.

 

 

 

[Lodestone]

Tiger beats the crap out of

 

Anybody in his prime

 

Nobody would contest that.

 

6 Majors in 3 years.

 

For perspective, "phenom" Rory won

 

3 Majors is 3 years.

 

I must agree. The only arguments against Tiger as GOAT have to revolve around a contention that his prime wasn't "long enough", but for that period of time between his first major and his last, nobody comes really all that close.

[Forged4ever]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I would agree with you-

 

There are 12 Players who have "proven" that they can win a Major-

 

Obviously, that will grow though we shall see how much longer Tiger Plays-

 

Thanks for posting :)

 

My Best,

Richard

[nochct1]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I would agree with you-

 

There are 12 Players who have "proven" that they can win a Major-

 

Obviously, that will grow though we shall see how much longer Tiger Plays-

 

Thanks for posting :)

 

My Best,

Richard

 

It's a fun argument to have. None of us will ever be "right" because we can't prove anything. But it makes for a good discussion. It's like arguing who the best QB of all time is.

[Hawkeye77]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I would agree with you-

 

There are 12 Players who have "proven" that they can win a Major-

 

Obviously, that will grow though we shall see how much longer Tiger Plays-

 

Thanks for posting :)

 

My Best,

Richard

 

Don't give up so fast!

 

The Tiger proponents, and good for them, are talking about career, not a snapshot.

 

The number of career majors of anyone still competitive that Jack beat in majors he won, including 1986, are perfectly valid and the list is much more impressive than Tiger's. Palmer, Casper, Player, Watson, Seve, Faldo, Trevino, Irwin, Floyd, Price, Norman, Miller, and on and on. I'm obviously not counting Hogan or other guys who were not factors in early tournaments Jack won, or just at the Masters because the had won once upon a time.

 

I've always looked at multiple major winners who were competitive/realistically capable of winning when Jack beat them - same with Tiger. So, of course, you count the career multiple majors as a total, not some amount at any given time, as the measure of the overall greatness of the player. That's my measure, may not be someone else's.

 

The only thing we have to wait for is for Tiger's career to be over, and the guys he beat in majors/actually dueled in a real sense to have finished winning majors, and then we'll have the better idea. That is a ways off in the future.

 

Drew -- one point, the current four majors were formulated long before Palmer had the notion of winning his grand slam, and a long time before 1960. I'll get you some resource material on that, because it goes back a lot farther than I think you think it does, or at least the way I am reading your posts. If I'm misinterpreting, sorry about that, but I don't think I am.

[Sean2]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I would agree with you-

 

There are 12 Players who have "proven" that they can win a Major-

 

Obviously, that will grow though we shall see how much longer Tiger Plays-

 

Thanks for posting :)

 

My Best,

Richard

 

It's a fun argument to have. None of us will ever be "right" because we can't prove anything. But it makes for a good discussion. It's like arguing who the best QB of all time is.

 

I was going to post pretty much the same thing. No way this can proven. In any case, someone will no doubt come along who will outshine both Tiger and Jack.

[tsecor]

easier to win today? i agree....no tough competition but a few at the top......

?? That is what you have been saying about Jack's era saying it was more difficult because there was no tough competition as the top few dominated. :)

 

ummmmmm.......no

[tsecor]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

 

haahahahahaah...this is the best.......

[Shilgy]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I would agree with you-

 

There are 12 Players who have "proven" that they can win a Major-

 

Obviously, that will grow though we shall see how much longer Tiger Plays-

 

Thanks for posting :)

 

My Best,

Richard

 

Don't give up so fast!

 

The Tiger proponents, and good for them, are talking about career, not a snapshot.

 

The number of career majors of anyone still competitive that Jack beat in majors he won, including 1986, are perfectly valid and the list is much more impressive than Tiger's. Palmer, Casper, Player, Watson, Seve, Faldo, Trevino, Irwin, Floyd, Price, Norman, Miller, and on and on. I'm obviously not counting Hogan or other guys who were not factors in early tournaments Jack won, or just at the Masters because the had won once upon a time.

 

I've always looked at multiple major winners who were competitive/realistically capable of winning when Jack beat them - same with Tiger. So, of course, you count the career multiple majors as a total, not some amount at any given time, as the measure of the overall greatness of the player. That's my measure, may not be someone else's.

 

The only thing we have to wait for is for Tiger's career to be over, and the guys he beat in majors/actually dueled in a real sense to have finished winning majors, and then we'll have the better idea. That is a ways off in the future.

 

Drew -- one point, the current four majors were formulated long before Palmer had the notion of winning his grand slam, and a long time before 1960. I'll get you some resource material on that, because it goes back a lot farther than I think you think it does, or at least the way I am reading your posts. If I'm misinterpreting, sorry about that, but I don't think I am.

So based on your "multiple major winner" theory the fewer the good players (because they would then win more often) the tougher the era?

[bscinstnct]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I would agree with you-

 

There are 12 Players who have "proven" that they can win a Major-

 

Obviously, that will grow though we shall see how much longer Tiger Plays-

 

Thanks for posting :)

 

My Best,

Richard

 

Don't give up so fast!

 

The Tiger proponents, and good for them, are talking about career, not a snapshot.

 

The number of career majors of anyone still competitive that Jack beat in majors he won, including 1986, are perfectly valid and the list is much more impressive than Tiger's. Palmer, Casper, Player, Watson, Seve, Faldo, Trevino, Irwin, Floyd, Price, Norman, Miller, and on and on. I'm obviously not counting Hogan or other guys who were not factors in early tournaments Jack won, or just at the Masters because the had won once upon a time.

 

I've always looked at multiple major winners who were competitive/realistically capable of winning when Jack beat them - same with Tiger. So, of course, you count the career multiple majors as a total, not some amount at any given time, as the measure of the overall greatness of the player. That's my measure, may not be someone else's.

 

The only thing we have to wait for is for Tiger's career to be over, and the guys he beat in majors/actually dueled in a real sense to have finished winning majors, and then we'll have the better idea. That is a ways off in the future.

 

Drew -- one point, the current four majors were formulated long before Palmer had the notion of winning his grand slam, and a long time before 1960. I'll get you some resource material on that, because it goes back a lot farther than I think you think it does, or at least the way I am reading your posts. If I'm misinterpreting, sorry about that, but I don't think I am.

 

Tom Watson never won a PGA Championship

 

Lee Trevino never won a Masters

 

Arnie was not a true contemporary of Jacks (Arnie is 10 years older)

 

Nor is Faldo. Faldo won his 1st Major in 1987.

 

Norman either, he won his 1st Major in 1984.

 

TW and Jack are in a seperate class.

 

Its just Jack didnt play head to head with any multiple major winners who were very long.

 

TW had to play guys just as long as Jack. Phil and Ernie for example. They would pressure Jack off the tee.

 

And, per Trevino, Jack did not have a great wedge game.

 

Tiger, on the other hand?

[Lodestone]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I would agree with you-

 

There are 12 Players who have "proven" that they can win a Major-

 

Obviously, that will grow though we shall see how much longer Tiger Plays-

 

Thanks for posting :)

 

My Best,

Richard

 

Don't give up so fast!

 

The Tiger proponents, and good for them, are talking about career, not a snapshot.

 

The number of career majors of anyone still competitive that Jack beat in majors he won, including 1986, are perfectly valid and the list is much more impressive than Tiger's. Palmer, Casper, Player, Watson, Seve, Faldo, Trevino, Irwin, Floyd, Price, Norman, Miller, and on and on. I'm obviously not counting Hogan or other guys who were not factors in early tournaments Jack won, or just at the Masters because the had won once upon a time.

 

I've always looked at multiple major winners who were competitive/realistically capable of winning when Jack beat them - same with Tiger. So, of course, you count the career multiple majors as a total, not some amount at any given time, as the measure of the overall greatness of the player. That's my measure, may not be someone else's.

 

The only thing we have to wait for is for Tiger's career to be over, and the guys he beat in majors/actually dueled in a real sense to have finished winning majors, and then we'll have the better idea. That is a ways off in the future.

 

Drew -- one point, the current four majors were formulated long before Palmer had the notion of winning his grand slam, and a long time before 1960. I'll get you some resource material on that, because it goes back a lot farther than I think you think it does, or at least the way I am reading your posts. If I'm misinterpreting, sorry about that, but I don't think I am.

 

Tom Watson never won a PGA Championship

 

Lee Trevino never won a Masters

 

Arnie was not a true contemporary of Jacks (Arnie is 10 years older)

 

Nor is Faldo. Faldo won his 1st Major in 1987.

 

Norman either, he won his 1st Major in 1984.

 

as i posted before, facts confuse me.

[bscinstnct]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

 

Yup, Watson is 9 years younger than Jack.

 

Watson did not play a full season of majors until

 

1975. When he won his first.

 

Jack played his first full season of majors in

 

1962! When he won his first.

 

 

[tsecor]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I would agree with you-

 

There are 12 Players who have "proven" that they can win a Major-

 

Obviously, that will grow though we shall see how much longer Tiger Plays-

 

Thanks for posting :)

 

My Best,

Richard

 

Don't give up so fast!

 

The Tiger proponents, and good for them, are talking about career, not a snapshot.

 

The number of career majors of anyone still competitive that Jack beat in majors he won, including 1986, are perfectly valid and the list is much more impressive than Tiger's. Palmer, Casper, Player, Watson, Seve, Faldo, Trevino, Irwin, Floyd, Price, Norman, Miller, and on and on. I'm obviously not counting Hogan or other guys who were not factors in early tournaments Jack won, or just at the Masters because the had won once upon a time.

 

I've always looked at multiple major winners who were competitive/realistically capable of winning when Jack beat them - same with Tiger. So, of course, you count the career multiple majors as a total, not some amount at any given time, as the measure of the overall greatness of the player. That's my measure, may not be someone else's.

 

The only thing we have to wait for is for Tiger's career to be over, and the guys he beat in majors/actually dueled in a real sense to have finished winning majors, and then we'll have the better idea. That is a ways off in the future.

 

Drew -- one point, the current four majors were formulated long before Palmer had the notion of winning his grand slam, and a long time before 1960. I'll get you some resource material on that, because it goes back a lot farther than I think you think it does, or at least the way I am reading your posts. If I'm misinterpreting, sorry about that, but I don't think I am.

 

Tom Watson never won a PGA Championship

 

Lee Trevino never won a Masters

 

Arnie was not a true contemporary of Jacks (Arnie is 10 years older)

 

Nor is Faldo. Faldo won his 1st Major in 1987.

 

Norman either, he won his 1st Major in 1984.

 

TW and Jack are in a seperate class.

 

Its just Jack didnt play head to head with any multiple major winners who were very long.

 

TW had to play guys just as long as Jack. Phil and Ernie for example. They would pressure Jack off the tee.

 

And, per Trevino, Jack did not have a great wedge game.

 

Tiger, on the other hand?

 

this may be the funniest post ive ever read.....lol.....thanks for the laugh

[Forged4ever]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I couldn't agree more that there have been plenty of guys in Tiger's era who have "proven" that they could win-

 

There have been 12-

 

Regarding Jack's career and I would never be so arrogant as to say because someone interpreted something differently than I that they were "wrong," however this being WRX, well, it wouldn't be my first time and it won't be my last, lol

 

My point was not so much the total Majors won by those 39 men, though the number is impressive, regardless of how you slice and dice it, but that there were 39 men who "proved" that they had the game, mettle and where with all to stake their claim.

 

THAT number is, to me, more impressive than the total number because we always hear the minions chirping about Jack's era being "the same 4 or 5 guys at the Top" and obviously, that is wrong, lol.

 

Regarding cutting Jack's career off in 1980 with his his final multi-major year(US Open & PGA Championship), is as premature I believe, as declaring Phil's or Tiger's career over.

 

Just because Jack was not the Dominant force that he was in the 60's and 70's, from 1981-1985, Jack had SEVEN TOP-10's in Majors-

 

Not bad for a 40-45yo Man, huh, lol??

 

This period also included 2 more runner-up in Majors-

 

Jack also won twice during this period, taking the Colonial(1982, 42yo) and his Tourney, The Memorial(1984, 44yo).

 

In 1983(43yo), Jack had final round 65's to finish runner-up in both the PGA to PoY Hal Sutton and in the World Series of Golf to Nick Price.

 

Despite not winning in 1983, Jack finished 10th in the money list.

 

In the 1981 Ryder Cup, basically a year after many think his career ended until the miracle of '86, Jack went 4-0.

 

That ain't bad for a washed up 41yo, LMAO

 

In 1985, Jack finished 43rd on the money list.

 

While obviously not up to the standard that he had set for himself and all other Players he was a 45yo man and was still formidable on the golf course.

 

The only difference was that he was now human.

 

My only point is that to discount Jack's career from 1980-1985 is to discount a period that was better than 93-95% of any Player from any era has achieved-

 

~ 2 victories

~ 7 Top-10's in Majors

~ 2 of those being runner-up

~ 4-0 in his Ryder Cup appearance

 

Nah, I'm gonna take Jack's career right up through that weekend at Augusta-

 

I LOVE being wrong, LMAO

 

Stay well my Friend and have a great season :)

 

All the Best,

RP

[Shilgy]

Imo, which of course is all this is from any of us, the chart Drew posted is key. In any 25 year period guess what? There will be 100 majors won. So to look at just the winners does not necessarily show the number of true contenders. This past weekend we saw guys we never heard of really not back down and shoot 7 to 8 under in the final round. Does that make them incompetent and inconsequential because they did not win? And there are massive waves of them out there.

[norge5]

This is like the old "who's the greatest heavyweight fighter of all time" argument.

Unless you are just a Tiger fan, I don't see anyway you can not have Jack at the top of the list. Somebody made a compelling argument for Hagen in 2nd but, other than that, I find it hard to come to any other conclusion. Now if Tiger goes back to being dominant, or at least winning some, then it gets interesting again.

When comparing the competition of the era's, I stand by my assertion that the players of yesteryear were tougher competitor's. Maybe because they weren't making great livings just making the cut or maybe men were just tougher in general back then. I like to think it's the latter.

[nochct1]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I couldn't agree more that there have been plenty of guys in Tiger's era who have "proven" that they could win-

 

There have been 12-

 

Regarding Jack's career and I would never be so arrogant as to say because someone interpreted something differently than I that they were "wrong," however this being WRX, well, it wouldn't be my first time and it won't be my last, lol

 

My point was not so much the total Majors won by those 39 men, though the number is impressive, regardless of how you slice and dice it, but that there were 39 men who "proved" that they had the game, mettle and where with all to stake their claim.

 

THAT number is, to me, more impressive than the total number because we always hear the minions chirping about Jack's era being "the same 4 or 5 guys at the Top" and obviously, that is wrong, lol.

 

Regarding cutting Jack's career off in 1980 with his his final multi-major year(US Open & PGA Championship), is as premature I believe, as declaring Phil's or Tiger's career over.

 

Just because Jack was not the Dominant force that he was in the 60's and 70's, from 1981-1985, Jack had SEVEN TOP-10's in Majors-

 

Not bad for a 40-45yo Man, huh, lol??

 

This period also included 2 more runner-up in Majors-

 

Jack also won twice during this period, taking the Colonial(1982, 42yo) and his Tourney, The Memorial(1984, 44yo).

 

In 1983(43yo), Jack had final round 65's to finish runner-up in both the PGA to PoY Hal Sutton and in the World Series of Golf to Nick Price.

 

Despite not winning in 1983, Jack finished 10th in the money list.

 

In the 1981 Ryder Cup, basically a year after many think his career ended until the miracle of '86, Jack went 4-0.

 

That ain't bad for a washed up 41yo, LMAO

 

In 1985, Jack finished 43rd on the money list.

 

While obviously not up to the standard that he had set for himself and all other Players he was a 45yo man and was still formidable on the golf course.

 

The only difference was that he was now human.

 

My only point is that to discount Jack's career from 1980-1985 is to discount a period that was better than 93-95% of any Player from any era has achieved-

 

~ 2 victories

~ 7 Top-10's in Majors

~ 2 of those being runner-up

~ 4-0 in his Ryder Cup appearance

 

Nah, I'm gonna take Jack's career right up through that weekend at Augusta-

 

I LOVE being wrong, LMAO

 

Stay well my Friend and have a great season :)

 

All the Best,

RP

 

I just suggest cutting off the analysis at 1980 because that puts Jack at the same age that Tiger is now. Otherwise we're comparing Jack at 46 and Tiger at 40. The next six years, when Tiger turns 46 are unknown. We can only base analysis on what is know.

 

I try to look at this as though we are having this discussion in 1980, when Jack was 40.

 

It's interesting to see all of the guys who won while Jack was a pro. I think people forget that as time goes on.

[Hawkeye77]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I would agree with you-

 

There are 12 Players who have "proven" that they can win a Major-

 

Obviously, that will grow though we shall see how much longer Tiger Plays-

 

Thanks for posting :)

 

My Best,

Richard

 

Don't give up so fast!

 

The Tiger proponents, and good for them, are talking about career, not a snapshot.

 

The number of career majors of anyone still competitive that Jack beat in majors he won, including 1986, are perfectly valid and the list is much more impressive than Tiger's. Palmer, Casper, Player, Watson, Seve, Faldo, Trevino, Irwin, Floyd, Price, Norman, Miller, and on and on. I'm obviously not counting Hogan or other guys who were not factors in early tournaments Jack won, or just at the Masters because the had won once upon a time.

 

I've always looked at multiple major winners who were competitive/realistically capable of winning when Jack beat them - same with Tiger. So, of course, you count the career multiple majors as a total, not some amount at any given time, as the measure of the overall greatness of the player. That's my measure, may not be someone else's.

 

The only thing we have to wait for is for Tiger's career to be over, and the guys he beat in majors/actually dueled in a real sense to have finished winning majors, and then we'll have the better idea. That is a ways off in the future.

 

Drew -- one point, the current four majors were formulated long before Palmer had the notion of winning his grand slam, and a long time before 1960. I'll get you some resource material on that, because it goes back a lot farther than I think you think it does, or at least the way I am reading your posts. If I'm misinterpreting, sorry about that, but I don't think I am.

So based on your "multiple major winner" theory the fewer the good players (because they would then win more often) the tougher the era?

 

No, not at all what I'm saying. I've been down this abyss of an argument too many times, though.

[Forged4ever]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

 

Yup, Watson is 9 years younger than Jack.

 

Watson did not play a full season of majors until

 

1975. When he won his first.

 

Jack played his first full season of majors in

 

1962! When he won his first.

Bro, Arnie won FOUR Touneys in 1971 and was in the hunt through Saturday at Oakmont in '73. Yes, he was older to Nicklaus.as Jack was to Tom Watson however Jack and Arnie went head to head in the 60's and Jack beat his a** and broke his heart when Arnie still had game.

 

Jack made Tom-

 

Pebble and Turnberry.

 

Tom says this-

 

Yes, Jack was older however both men got the absolute best that the other had to give and they fed off of each other.

 

I'm not taking anything away from Tiger circa 1998-2000, because I believe that he would've beat the s*** out of anyone, from any era.

 

It was incredible to watch

 

Have a nice evening :)

 

My Best,

RP

[Shilgy]

Phil - 5

Ernie - 4

Rory - 4

Vijay - 3

Harrington - 3

Payne Stewart - 3 (1 while Tiger was a pro)

Bubba - 2

O'Meara - 2

Speith - 2

Zach Johnson - 2

Angel Cabrera - 2

Goosen - 2

 

As I pointed out earlier, some of the numbers from Jacks era are interpreted wrong. They go up to 1986, when he was 46. To be accurate you need to go to 1980. Seve had 2 majors at that point. Watson had 3. Floyd had 2.

 

Six years from now we can do a real analysis. But I would say that there have been plenty of guys in Tigers era that have proven that they can win.

I would agree with you-

 

There are 12 Players who have "proven" that they can win a Major-

 

Obviously, that will grow though we shall see how much longer Tiger Plays-

 

Thanks for posting :)

 

My Best,

Richard

 

Don't give up so fast!

 

The Tiger proponents, and good for them, are talking about career, not a snapshot.

 

The number of career majors of anyone still competitive that Jack beat in majors he won, including 1986, are perfectly valid and the list is much more impressive than Tiger's. Palmer, Casper, Player, Watson, Seve, Faldo, Trevino, Irwin, Floyd, Price, Norman, Miller, and on and on. I'm obviously not counting Hogan or other guys who were not factors in early tournaments Jack won, or just at the Masters because the had won once upon a time.

 

I've always looked at multiple major winners who were competitive/realistically capable of winning when Jack beat them - same with Tiger. So, of course, you count the career multiple majors as a total, not some amount at any given time, as the measure of the overall greatness of the player. That's my measure, may not be someone else's.

 

The only thing we have to wait for is for Tiger's career to be over, and the guys he beat in majors/actually dueled in a real sense to have finished winning majors, and then we'll have the better idea. That is a ways off in the future.

 

Drew -- one point, the current four majors were formulated long before Palmer had the notion of winning his grand slam, and a long time before 1960. I'll get you some resource material on that, because it goes back a lot farther than I think you think it does, or at least the way I am reading your posts. If I'm misinterpreting, sorry about that, but I don't think I am.

So based on your "multiple major winner" theory the fewer the good players (because they would then win more often) the tougher the era?

 

No, not at all what I'm saying. I've been down this abyss of an argument too many times, though.

me too. :)