Should Topic Title Be: Tiger Is Done, or Is Tiger Done?

[jay65]

Okay, I do concede this issue of Weiskopf there! But during Tigers career, he only went up against 2 guys that won more than 3 Majors, Yes, 2. (Mickelson and Els)

 

On the other hand Jack went up against 5 guys who had more than 3 Majors to their names. (Player, Trevino, Palmer, Watson and Ballesteros). so I'd still like to know who these 20-30 'greats' who went up against Tiger are?

 

But even if you take other players out of the equation, if you take the record of Jack at Augusta alone. His average score around Augusta was 72, whereas Tigers was 71, but when you take into consideration that of the 163 times Jack tee'd it up at Augusta, over 40 of those rounds were when he was over 50yo! That does put into perspective how good an average score he had around Augusta as an example.

 

And whilst we're on the subject of the players that really matter, who thinks who is the best. Tiger himself said Jack was the best! Lip service? Well maybe, but I happen to agree with Tiger on that one.

[ksgolfguy007]

Maybe he needs just to play golf without swing for the fences and just shoot better during tournament rounds. Instead of trying to keep up with the young guns.

 

There is a older gentlemen at our club 65+ or older ( I can't recall) but he still is the club champ year in and year out.

 

If he just plays his game he would win on just determination alone

[Joe85]

 

Howd we get on this topic again?

 

 

It's a thread about Tiger. That's how.

[BillyZ2]

I just wonder if this topic will be continually rehashed for the next decade or two?

[SilverBullets]

Okay, I do concede this issue of Weiskopf there! But during Tigers career, he only went up against 2 guys that won more than 3 Majors, Yes, 2. (Mickelson and Els)

 

On the other hand Jack went up against 5 guys who had more than 3 Majors to their names. (Player, Trevino, Palmer, Watson and Ballesteros). so I'd still like to know who these 20-30 'greats' who went up against Tiger are?

 

But even if you take other players out of the equation, if you take the record of Jack at Augusta alone. His average score around Augusta was 72, whereas Tigers was 71, but when you take into consideration that of the 163 times Jack tee'd it up at Augusta, over 40 of those rounds were when he was over 50yo! That does put into perspective how good an average score he had around Augusta as an example.

 

And whilst we're on the subject of the players that really matter, who thinks who is the best. Tiger himself said Jack was the best! Lip service? Well maybe, but I happen to agree with Tiger on that one.

 

The number of majors for the competition isn't really an apples to apples comparison. Even Jack has said back in his prime he only had to beat a handful of guys. Tiger had to beat at least a couple dozen capable players. So when thinking about how jack played against more guys with multiple majors than tiger, you really can't compare that. In Jacks era there were maybe only 10 to 15 guys capable of winning of a major on any given week (so guys who could win with their B game). Tiger probably had 40 guys who could that he played against.

 

So yeah, jack played against more guys with multiple majors but that's because it spread amoung a much smaller population of capable guys. There is a reason why there have been so many first time major winners over the past decade. It's because the fields are so deep and there are so many guys capable of winning tournaments now.

[cdnglf]

Okay, I do concede this issue of Weiskopf there! But during Tigers career, he only went up against 2 guys that won more than 3 Majors, Yes, 2. (Mickelson and Els)

 

On the other hand Jack went up against 5 guys who had more than 3 Majors to their names. (Player, Trevino, Palmer, Watson and Ballesteros). so I'd still like to know who these 20-30 'greats' who went up against Tiger are?

 

But even if you take other players out of the equation, if you take the record of Jack at Augusta alone. His average score around Augusta was 72, whereas Tigers was 71, but when you take into consideration that of the 163 times Jack tee'd it up at Augusta, over 40 of those rounds were when he was over 50yo! That does put into perspective how good an average score he had around Augusta as an example.

 

And whilst we're on the subject of the players that really matter, who thinks who is the best. Tiger himself said Jack was the best! Lip service? Well maybe, but I happen to agree with Tiger on that one.

 

"Opponents with >3 majors" seems pretty contrived, and you're missing at least one for Jack (Floyd) and at least one for Tiger (Rory, arguably Faldo).

 

But the whole point is that using raw major totals to compare across eras is horribly flawed. As time goes on, there are more and more good players in pro golf. More and more good players who can win in a given week. And thus more guys to share in the fixed quantity of majors. Winning a tournament means beating everyone, not just the small subset of "great" players in the field.

 

And of course, the majors of the 60s and especially 50s weren't "majors" in the way that we have them today. Probably wasn't until the 90s that they truly got to modern status and every major had pretty much all the best players all the time. Today, every major has all the top 50 players in the world (and in the PGA's case all the top 100). Go look at Gary Player's '59 Open Championship win and tell me how that compares.

[GeorgeHWB]

In Bill James terms (the godfather of baseball SABRmetrics), I think Tiger had the higher peak, Jack had the better career.

 

If you could normalize for eras, I would put my money on Tiger 2000-01 against anyone in history.

[jay65]

When we have this 'argument' we all seem to be 'picking' at convenient arguments. And I'm as guilty as anyone of that, with the Augusta average score fact. Whilst some others bring up Faldo when trying to add another 'Great' to the list of people Tiger had to go up against, when I think if they were honest with themselves, Faldo was pretty much done as far as Majors were concerned, by the time Tiger came onto the scene in '97.

 

Undoubtedly, Tiger went up against more depth of competent players in his heyday, but Jack went up against more quality, the facts support that by the example I previously gave.

 

I think that at the end of the day, when this issue comes up, the majority of people over 50yo on here would say that Jack was the best of all time, and the majority of under 40's may say Tiger was. And anyone between 40yo and 50yo it may be 50/50. But remember this guys, the majority of guys that think Tiger was the best that are under 40yo, none of you will have seen Jack play in his pomp. Seeing him play on Shells wonderful World of Golf is not quite the same thing I'm afraid, and with the advances in TV coverage, all you really know is the Tiger era, and that seems a very strong one obviously. But I was at Turnberry as a young lad in 1977, and again in 2006 at Hoylake, and although Tigers' ball striking at Hoylake was quite unbelievable, what I saw at Turnberry as a boy by Watson and Nicklaus was the best 2 Golfers I'd ever seen in my life, and since!

 

Of course that experience in 1977 maybe made me biased, because as 13yo children perhaps we're more in awe than when we're adults, so I would concede that, but from someone who saw both in their pomp, I'd still give the edge to Jack. Sorry, Tiger fans.

[JCA]

Okay, I do concede this issue of Weiskopf there! But during Tigers career, he only went up against 2 guys that won more than 3 Majors, Yes, 2. (Mickelson and Els)

 

On the other hand Jack went up against 5 guys who had more than 3 Majors to their names. (Player, Trevino, Palmer, Watson and Ballesteros). so I'd still like to know who these 20-30 'greats' who went up against Tiger are?

 

But even if you take other players out of the equation, if you take the record of Jack at Augusta alone. His average score around Augusta was 72, whereas Tigers was 71, but when you take into consideration that of the 163 times Jack tee'd it up at Augusta, over 40 of those rounds were when he was over 50yo! That does put into perspective how good an average score he had around Augusta as an example.

 

And whilst we're on the subject of the players that really matter, who thinks who is the best. Tiger himself said Jack was the best! Lip service? Well maybe, but I happen to agree with Tiger on that one.

 

"Opponents with >3 majors" seems pretty contrived, and you're missing at least one for Jack (Floyd) and at least one for Tiger (Rory, arguably Faldo).

 

But the whole point is that using raw major totals to compare across eras is horribly flawed. As time goes on, there are more and more good players in pro golf. More and more good players who can win in a given week. And thus more guys to share in the fixed quantity of majors. Winning a tournament means beating everyone, not just the small subset of "great" players in the field.

 

And of course, the majors of the 60s and especially 50s weren't "majors" in the way that we have them today. Probably wasn't until the 90s that they truly got to modern status and every major had pretty much all the best players all the time. Today, every major has all the top 50 players in the world (and in the PGA's case all the top 100). Go look at Gary Player's '59 Open Championship win and tell me how that compares.

 

Faldo's last major was the Masters in 1996. Tiger wasn't even on tour until later that year.

 

Vijay Singh won all his majors (3) with Tiger on tour and most of his wins in his 40's. So basically Tiger had 3 major championship players to beat Phil, Vijay and Ernie all with 3+ majors. Granted the tour was more deep in quality and more difficult to win on a weekly regular tour event. Rory won his first major 3 years after Tiger's last major. So you can't include Faldo and Rory as Tiger's majors competition while you can include Faldo and Norman to Jack's list. Norman was runner up to Jack at the Masters in 1986 and Faldo won his majors from 1987 to 1996 right after Jack won his last. Oh wait so that means that Faldo had the less competition? Hahahahaha.

[gallas2]

Boys I dunno if this has been posted but the more 77\wd's he puts up the more his legacy is tarnished. Can you imagine him doing that at Augusta? He may hang em up out of pure pride rather than become a circus show.

[jay65]

Okay, I do concede this issue of Weiskopf there! But during Tigers career, he only went up against 2 guys that won more than 3 Majors, Yes, 2. (Mickelson and Els)

 

On the other hand Jack went up against 5 guys who had more than 3 Majors to their names. (Player, Trevino, Palmer, Watson and Ballesteros). so I'd still like to know who these 20-30 'greats' who went up against Tiger are?

 

But even if you take other players out of the equation, if you take the record of Jack at Augusta alone. His average score around Augusta was 72, whereas Tigers was 71, but when you take into consideration that of the 163 times Jack tee'd it up at Augusta, over 40 of those rounds were when he was over 50yo! That does put into perspective how good an average score he had around Augusta as an example.

 

And whilst we're on the subject of the players that really matter, who thinks who is the best. Tiger himself said Jack was the best! Lip service? Well maybe, but I happen to agree with Tiger on that one.

 

"Opponents with >3 majors" seems pretty contrived, and you're missing at least one for Jack (Floyd) and at least one for Tiger (Rory, arguably Faldo).

 

But the whole point is that using raw major totals to compare across eras is horribly flawed. As time goes on, there are more and more good players in pro golf. More and more good players who can win in a given week. And thus more guys to share in the fixed quantity of majors. Winning a tournament means beating everyone, not just the small subset of "great" players in the field.

 

And of course, the majors of the 60s and especially 50s weren't "majors" in the way that we have them today. Probably wasn't until the 90s that they truly got to modern status and every major had pretty much all the best players all the time. Today, every major has all the top 50 players in the world (and in the PGA's case all the top 100). Go look at Gary Player's '59 Open Championship win and tell me how that compares.

 

Faldo's last major was the Masters in 1996. Tiger wasn't even on tour until later that year.

 

Vijay Singh won all his majors (3) with Tiger on tour and most of his wins in his 40's. So basically Tiger had 3 major championship players to beat Phil, Vijay and Ernie all with 3+ majors. Granted the tour was more deep in quality and more difficult to win on a weekly regular tour event. Rory won his first major 3 years after Tiger's last major. So you can't include Faldo and Rory as Tiger's majors competition while you can include Faldo and Norman to Jack's list. Norman was runner up to Jack at the Masters in 1986 and Faldo won his majors from 1987 to 1996 right after Jack won his last. Oh wait so that means that Faldo had the less competition? Hahahahaha.

 

I agree.....but then I would do wouldn't I? Lol.

 

I'll just throw one more stat out there for the doubters, and that is between The Open in 1970 and The Open in 1978, Jack played in 33 Majors, and of those 33 Majors he finished in the top 10 in 31 of those! A pretty amazing stat, when he more multiple Major Champions to go up against than Tiger did. Tiger can't even get close to that. As I said, sure, I concede that Tiger had more overall 'depth' to go up against, but Jack had more multiple Major winners to go up against, and in my opinion, the likes of Player, Palmer, Trevino, Seve, and Watson were truly greats of the game, and no-one that Tiger went up against could hold a candle to any one of those. Not even Phil or Els.

 

Just my opinion though guys, I do understand and respect that some people will have other opinions. But upon seeing both in their heyday, my vote goes to Jack.

[PGArox]

How'd we get on this topic again?

 

GolfWRX, baby. :)

[bscinstnct]

Okay, I do concede this issue of Weiskopf there! But during Tigers career, he only went up against 2 guys that won more than 3 Majors, Yes, 2. (Mickelson and Els)

 

On the other hand Jack went up against 5 guys who had more than 3 Majors to their names. (Player, Trevino, Palmer, Watson and Ballesteros). so I'd still like to know who these 20-30 'greats' who went up against Tiger are?

 

But even if you take other players out of the equation, if you take the record of Jack at Augusta alone. His average score around Augusta was 72, whereas Tigers was 71, but when you take into consideration that of the 163 times Jack tee'd it up at Augusta, over 40 of those rounds were when he was over 50yo! That does put into perspective how good an average score he had around Augusta as an example.

 

And whilst we're on the subject of the players that really matter, who thinks who is the best. Tiger himself said Jack was the best! Lip service? Well maybe, but I happen to agree with Tiger on that one.

 

Arnie won his last major in 64. And 6 of 7 by 62.

 

Jack won his first in 62.

 

Watson won his first in 75. 13 years after jacks first.

 

Seve won his first in 79.

 

So, jack had a stretch of his prime years where he didnt compete against any of them really.

[Marco]

Wonder if he took 5 years off would that help his body recover to the point where he could play 10 events a year? He'd be 46. Mickelson is 46 right now. Last year a dude who was 46 ish shot 58. Rod Pampling (47) won a tournament. Or is it once your back is fried...your back if fried type a deal?

 

As long as he doesnt address the cause, which is postural, he will never be 100%

 

 

 

[cdnglf]

Okay, I do concede this issue of Weiskopf there! But during Tigers career, he only went up against 2 guys that won more than 3 Majors, Yes, 2. (Mickelson and Els)

 

On the other hand Jack went up against 5 guys who had more than 3 Majors to their names. (Player, Trevino, Palmer, Watson and Ballesteros). so I'd still like to know who these 20-30 'greats' who went up against Tiger are?

 

But even if you take other players out of the equation, if you take the record of Jack at Augusta alone. His average score around Augusta was 72, whereas Tigers was 71, but when you take into consideration that of the 163 times Jack tee'd it up at Augusta, over 40 of those rounds were when he was over 50yo! That does put into perspective how good an average score he had around Augusta as an example.

 

And whilst we're on the subject of the players that really matter, who thinks who is the best. Tiger himself said Jack was the best! Lip service? Well maybe, but I happen to agree with Tiger on that one.

 

"Opponents with >3 majors" seems pretty contrived, and you're missing at least one for Jack (Floyd) and at least one for Tiger (Rory, arguably Faldo).

 

But the whole point is that using raw major totals to compare across eras is horribly flawed. As time goes on, there are more and more good players in pro golf. More and more good players who can win in a given week. And thus more guys to share in the fixed quantity of majors. Winning a tournament means beating everyone, not just the small subset of "great" players in the field.

 

And of course, the majors of the 60s and especially 50s weren't "majors" in the way that we have them today. Probably wasn't until the 90s that they truly got to modern status and every major had pretty much all the best players all the time. Today, every major has all the top 50 players in the world (and in the PGA's case all the top 100). Go look at Gary Player's '59 Open Championship win and tell me how that compares.

 

Faldo's last major was the Masters in 1996. Tiger wasn't even on tour until later that year.

 

Vijay Singh won all his majors (3) with Tiger on tour and most of his wins in his 40's. So basically Tiger had 3 major championship players to beat Phil, Vijay and Ernie all with 3+ majors. Granted the tour was more deep in quality and more difficult to win on a weekly regular tour event. Rory won his first major 3 years after Tiger's last major. So you can't include Faldo and Rory as Tiger's majors competition while you can include Faldo and Norman to Jack's list. Norman was runner up to Jack at the Masters in 1986 and Faldo won his majors from 1987 to 1996 right after Jack won his last. Oh wait so that means that Faldo had the less competition? Hahahahaha.

 

Faldo won his last at the '96 Masters and Tiger won his first a year later. Jack won his last out of the blue in '86 and Faldo won his first more than a year later at the '87 Open. Yet somehow Faldo is more a Jack competitor than a Tiger competitor?

Tiger got to #1 after Rory won a major, but you can't consider them competitors because Tiger didn't win another major?

Norman and Tiger exchanged #1 after Tiger won his first, but somehow they weren't competitors?

 

Pointless gerrymandering. You gotta beat the whole field to win a major, not just the guys who have or will win 3+ majors during the course of their careers.

And the fields at majors were unquestionably stronger in Tiger's day than Jack's.

[cdnglf]

In Bill James terms (the godfather of baseball SABRmetrics), I think Tiger had the higher peak, Jack had the better career.

 

If you could normalize for eras, I would put my money on Tiger 2000-01 against anyone in history.

 

Without doubt. 2000 was a 20 win share season.

[mwkbmw]

Let be real. Private jets are expensive. Tiger is not making 2002 dollars anymore. A G550 charter is ~$10K/hr. A private charter from LAX to Dubai would be in the $150/$200K range, each way. Now...he owns his own plane. But still has to put the miles on it and pay for fuel and fees (you have to pay fees to countries that allow you to use their airspace.) . Probably looking at $200K just in fuel at least for this one flight. It just does not make any sense these days. If Tiger wanted to fly private, he could have left from any airport in the LA area. If his jet was not available for whatever reason, he could easily charter if he wanted. Tee up money in Dubai probably would not even cover his fuel.

 

The reason he flew commercial out of LAX is not because any protestors. There just was no intention to fly private from the start. His jet would have left from San Diego, not LAX. And if he was going to fly private, there countless muni airports that can handle a G550. He would not mess with LAX. Could fly out of John Wayne, Fullerton, etc.

 

The commercial ticket was a financial move. And a First Class ticket on some of these airlines like Emirates, etc is no dump. Some of them have their own rooms. I dont think he was exactly sitting in seat 57B aisle seat.

 

Tiger did say he got to Dubai way late which makes sense if he planned on flying private but ended up flying commercial

 

I thought he had two extra days to travel. :D

[A.Princey]

Okay, I do concede this issue of Weiskopf there! But during Tigers career, he only went up against 2 guys that won more than 3 Majors, Yes, 2. (Mickelson and Els)

 

On the other hand Jack went up against 5 guys who had more than 3 Majors to their names. (Player, Trevino, Palmer, Watson and Ballesteros). so I'd still like to know who these 20-30 'greats' who went up against Tiger are?

 

But even if you take other players out of the equation, if you take the record of Jack at Augusta alone. His average score around Augusta was 72, whereas Tigers was 71, but when you take into consideration that of the 163 times Jack tee'd it up at Augusta, over 40 of those rounds were when he was over 50yo! That does put into perspective how good an average score he had around Augusta as an example.

 

And whilst we're on the subject of the players that really matter, who thinks who is the best. Tiger himself said Jack was the best! Lip service? Well maybe, but I happen to agree with Tiger on that one.

 

That's the exact argument that proves which field of golfers is better. An era with fewer multiple major winners is tougher crowd to golf against. The fact that nobody else in recent time has been able to rack up even 5+ majors is a testament to a higher level of competition. The fact that TW was able to do it is incredible. What are the odds that the 3-4 best players all come along and play together at the exact same time in history(player, Palmer, Nicklaus, etc). Also, hard for great players to stand out in the 90's and 00's when tournament table is being run by TW. All I am going to say.

 

Edit: My apologies for diverting the topic and starting another TW vs Jack thread, oops....

[dan360]

Tiger's back

[brew4eagle]

Didn't read entire thread but throwing in my $.02...

 

To answer the original question- "Tiger is done" and I'm not happy about it.

[playa]

He has already won more individual events than Snead. And 8 more than Jack. Jack has the most majors, and likely always will.

 

 

Jack also had 19 runners up finishes at the majors throughout his career. Tiger by comparison has had 6 runners up finishes in majors his entire career.

 

 

That in my opinion just shows Nicklaus was much more dominant and consistent than Tiger ever was by a long shot.

So finishing second is a sign of dominance? It shows that Nicklaus had consistent excellence, but could also show weaker fields.

[Joe85]

 

And of course, the majors of the 60s and especially 50s weren't "majors" in the way that we have them today. Probably wasn't until the 90s that they truly got to modern status and every major had pretty much all the best players all the time.

 

 

What a load. I stopped reading there...

[cdnglf]

 

And of course, the majors of the 60s and especially 50s weren't "majors" in the way that we have them today. Probably wasn't until the 90s that they truly got to modern status and every major had pretty much all the best players all the time.

 

 

What a load. I stopped reading there...

 

Too bad, maybe you could have learned something.

[jay65]

Sorry, but I just fail to understand how winning a Major is more difficult for any outstanding player to win, with 100 decent players in it and no 'giants', in comparison to 100 mediocre players, but 5-6 true giants of the game. I know which field that I would fancy my chances in if I had been gifted with half the talent of either of these guys.

 

With the amount of talent both guys possessed, I'd fancy my chances against a field with lots of decent players in but no real 'greats' in it, rather than my chances with the likes of Watson, Ballesteros, Trevino, Palmer or Player in it, even if the rest of the field was relatively poor. To put it in perspective, I'd rather have had Els and Mickelson on my tail going into the final round, than Player or Palmer in their pomp, put it that way. How good the rest of the field is, is an irrelevance. Quality over quantity is how I see it.

 

Anyway, all this is irrelevant to anyone who hasn't seen both play. And all these opinions are not even considering withstanding legacies left, ambassadorship of the game, role model consideration, equipment, golf balls, conditioning of the Courses and Greens between eras, we could go on and on, but there will always be people on both sides of the argument, but Jack wins out in my mind in all categories.

 

Sorry for being a major contributor to the derailing of this thread, I just love a good rant!! Lol. Apologies to the guys out there that want to chat about whether Tiger is done or not. I'll slope off with my tale between my legs now, so you can all rest easy.

[bscinstnct]

^but, jay.

 

Jack had a 10 plus year stretch in his prime where neither palmer or watson were factors.

[Bob57]

Also forgot about that other hack Nicklaus had to play against...Billy Casper 3 majors 51 wins. So Jack only had to play against a handful of good players (all of which are in the HOF). Tiger on the other hand had to beat 40-50 very capable players at every major. Would that include Rocco, DiMarco, May...all time champions huh. And of course the other all time great Y E Yang who basically ended Tigers major career. Another HOF player I guess..

 

So if the real majors didn't really start until the 1990s with talented fields I guess we just eliminate Jack, Gary, Arnold, Hogan, Jones, Floyd, Casper, Watson as not really playing against modern capable large fields. I would argue that the real large talent pool started in 2005 (1990-2005 was pretty devoid of true HOFers which is why Tiger cleaned up against 1 and doners).. Oops guess who would lose a number of his majors.

 

If Tiger keeps going down this path Gary Player might beat him over 4 rounds (without carts of course)

[jay65]

^but, jay.

 

Jack had a 10 plus year stretch in his prime where neither palmer or watson were factors.

 

Look, you're just trying to get me looking like a troll now!!! All I would say is, Thanks for bringing up Jacks longevity there, but I ain't biting, hahaha. There is another very good answer to that, but I ain't going there, so just stop!! You'll get me in trouble. Wink. :cheesy:

[BillyZ2]

Tiger's back

You are right, Tiger's back is shot!

[lowheel]

Boys I dunno if this has been posted but the more 77\wd's he puts up the more his legacy is tarnished. Can you imagine him doing that at Augusta? He may hang em up out of pure pride rather than become a circus show.

 

I wouldnt go that far. Hes hurt it happens but sending out your agent to field questions is bad. If he got hurt at augusta and posted a 76 or 77 he wouldnt quit because of pride. He a very prideful person and thats why he became what he was. This is his new normal unfortunately. If he can find a functional swing and routine to allow him to play 10-12 times this year good for him but im very skeptical. ive felt this way since 2012-13

[lowheel]

He's better off promoting the game now. Go build really nice courses. Get the younger generation more involved. He can do so much good for the game. Watching him try to play and compete against the 25 yr old long ball hitters is just painful. It's sad but I think it's time.

 

Good luck with that.Nobody can do that. try and get a kid/teen to play for 4 hours without losing his s@@t because they cant be on their phone for more than 2 minutes because of all their notifications. Its a different world, the game will only grow overseas