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

golfheaven69 · February 4, 2017

Enjoy him on Thursday and Friday while you can. His ego will not allow him to hang around long.

Joe85 · February 4, 2017

Too bad, maybe you could have learned something.

The only thing I learn from Tiger fanboys is that they will never acknowledge that Nicklaus is more accomplished and at the very least he is in the conversation of GOAT (and he didn't even get to courses weeks prior like pros do today - his family life was as important or more to him than even winning).

jay65 · February 4, 2017

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

Overseas? Hey, we have phones overseas too you know? The kids over here are exactly the same, getting them off their 'kindles'/phones/ipads is like doing root canal work. Lol.

lowheel · February 4, 2017

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

Overseas? Hey, we have phones overseas too you know? The kids over here are exactly the same, getting them off their 'kindles'/phones/ipads is like doing root canal work. Lol.

Sorry I didnt mean europe i meant the far east when i said overseas. The only growth Is china, korea, india, japan, and some northern african countries

cdnglf · February 4, 2017

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.

Golf is very much an "any given Sunday game" - the best player doesn't win - or even contend - every week. And "greats" don't play great every week. However, with enough good players, you're pretty much guaranteed that somebody will actually _play_ great that week.

Contrast with, say, tennis where if they just invited the top 8 players in the world to the slams they'd probably get just about the same results as they do today.

Louis Oosthuizen is not a "great", but nobody was beating him at the Open in 2010. Tiger or Jack would have needed his A+ game to beat that. Even with his A++ game, I don't think Gary Player could have beat Louis. Same thing with Stenson last year (to an even greater degree) - not sure anybody short of Tiger 2000 could have topped that.

Today, there are way more Louis Oosthuizens and Henrik Stensons - guys capable of four days' worth of great play. Furthermore (and this is the real kicker), those guys actually play in all the majors. That just wasn't the case in the past - the golf world was much more divided. Jack and Gary and a few others played them all but almost nobody else did.

Like I said, go look at the field of the Open Championship when Gary Player won in 1959 and tell me that's comparable to a major today. Even Arnie didn't play the Open every year through the 60s. And the tier of American players below that definitely didn't regularly play in the Open in those days.

On the other side, consider a guy like Sandy Lyle. A notch below Faldo/Seve/Norman, but still one of the best players of the 1980s.

Despite winning two majors, he played in only six US Opens and just 1 PGA Championship once during that entire decade. There is no way that would happen today.

jay65 · February 4, 2017

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

Overseas? Hey, we have phones overseas too you know? The kids over here are exactly the same, getting them off their 'kindles'/phones/ipads is like doing root canal work. Lol.

Sorry I didnt mean europe i meant the far east when i said overseas. The only growth Is china, korea, india, japan, and some northern african countries

Yeah, it's okay, I know what you meant, just my sense of humour, so no offence taken. But yes you do have a point. My 7yo son says he won't start playing again until April. When I asked him why, he said 'because it's warmer'. Whaaaaaat???? Get a grip and an extra pair of 'longjohns' on, and get yourself out there on that seaside Links in February - lovely bracing weather. They're too soft nowadays. :taunt:

cdnglf · February 4, 2017

Too bad, maybe you could have learned something.

The only thing I learn from Tiger fanboys is that they will never acknowledge that Nicklaus is more accomplished and at the very least he is in the conversation of GOAT (and he didn't even get to courses weeks prior like pros do today - his family life was as important or more to him than even winning).

This has nothing to do with what I posted.

lowheel · February 4, 2017

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.
All relative to competition, and it was definitely lacking. 5-10 great players in jack's era with 20 or so notables. 20-30 great players in and throughout the Tiger era and at least 100 more notable ones. Easy for a big fish to APPEAR even bigger in that small of a pond, but put him in lake and see the greatness vastly diminished. Take half the GOOD field out for Tiger in his hey-day and see that win total in a whole new light....

Jack might be the GREATEST golfer in history in terms of accomplishment, but TW is the BEST golfer of all time based on sheer skill level and shot making ability. Anybody that doubts this is fooling themselves, and it would've been embarrassing for THAT 'field' to have seen his skill set come along several decades earlier, had he been born sooner.

Skill is a measurement of the era. If tiger was born earlier I guarantee you he doesnt reach those heights because golf was different. Taught differently, played differently etc... He is a generational talent but You dont have to diminish one to elevate the other. Nobody swung wild/hard like that( maybe Norman occasionally) in the 80s and 90s because equipment didnt allow it. Tiger grew up with a lobwedge and had to get out of jail all the time because of wild driving and short siding himself. Matter of fact alot like Phil did. So comparing fields etc is your right as a tiger fan but its no more impressive now then it was when jack did it because you cant compare eras.

As reference if you want to put Jacks major record against tiger its not just 18-14. its 73 top 10 to 38. Phill has more top 10s in majors than Tiger has. Think about that for a second and let that sink in. then go to top 5s to really see mindblowing #s of how consistently dominant/great Jack was. Thats not a swipe at Tiger but people who appreciate the games history like me knows how great Jack and Tiger was and knows that hyperbole leads to nothing but bickering. I appreciate what Ive seen with Tiger but i also appreciate what came before and what will come after.

lowheel · February 4, 2017

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

Overseas? Hey, we have phones overseas too you know? The kids over here are exactly the same, getting them off their 'kindles'/phones/ipads is like doing root canal work. Lol.

Sorry I didnt mean europe i meant the far east when i said overseas. The only growth Is china, korea, india, japan, and some northern african countries

Yeah, it's okay, I know what you meant, just my sense of humour, so no offence taken. But yes you do have a point. My 7yo son says he won't start playing again until April. When I asked him why, he said 'because it's warmer'. Whaaaaaat???? Get a grip and an extra pair of 'longjohns' on, and get yourself out there on that seaside Links in February - lovely bracing weather. They're too soft nowadays. :taunt:

Cool, just making sure! Youre absolutely right. I run youth golf camps and i hear the same things. Its too hot, its too cold, do we have to walk? I know every generation complains about the nexts laziness and softness but jesus its bad. A 13 year old saying i cant play 9 with my phone off because it gives me anxiety that im missing out on something!!! scary times i tell ya

jay65 · February 4, 2017

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.

Golf is very much an "any given Sunday game" - the best player doesn't win - or even contend - every week. And "greats" don't play great every week. However, with enough good players, you're pretty much guaranteed that somebody will actually _play_ great that week.
Contrast with, say, tennis where if they just invited the top 8 players in the world to the slams they'd probably get just about the same results as they do today.

Louis Oosthuizen is not a "great", but nobody was beating him at the Open in 2010. Tiger or Jack would have needed his A+ game to beat that. Even with his A++ game, I don't think Gary Player could have beat Louis. Same thing with Stenson last year (to an even greater degree) - not sure anybody short of Tiger 2000 could have topped that.

Today, there are way more Louis Oosthuizens and Henrik Stensons - guys capable of four days' worth of great play. Furthermore (and this is the real kicker), those guys actually play in all the majors. That just wasn't the case in the past - the golf world was much more divided. Jack played them all but almost nobody else did.

Like I said, go look at the field of the Open Championship when Gary Player won in 1959 and tell me that's comparable to a major today. Arnie didn't play the Open every year through the 60s. And the tier of American players below that definitely didn't regularly play in the Open in those days.

On the other side, consider a guy like Sandy Lyle. A notch below Faldo/Seve/Norman, but still one of the best players of the 1980s.
Despite winning two majors, he played in only six US Opens and just 1 PGA Championship once during that entire decade. There is no way that would happen today.

You do make some fair points, many of which are quite factual. However, I would still maintain that Tiger had no real adversaries, yes, you can take the odd week in anyones' career when somebody may get hot that week in any era, but that doesn't alter that Jacks adversaries were so much more competitive with him than any of Tigers were, so equalizing out the excellent points you make, and making Jacks Major achievements all the more worthy.

Also, if you look at the issue of adversaries, Jack finished 2nd in Majors more than 10 times to the likes of Ballesteros, Player, Palmer, Trevino and Watson combined. Yet the only time that Tiger finished 2nd in a Major, was to Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson, Y.E. Yang, Rich Beem and Michael Campbell. Those guys got hot that week as you said, but you could hardly put them in the same category of the likes of the previous 5 I mentioned surely? Which kind of re-emphasises Woods' lack of adversaries argument.

Hang on a minute...................I said that I wasn't going to comment on this Tiger v Jack issue again...............bugger! :stop:

lowheel · February 4, 2017

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.

Golf is very much an "any given Sunday game" - the best player doesn't win - or even contend - every week. And "greats" don't play great every week. However, with enough good players, you're pretty much guaranteed that somebody will actually _play_ great that week.
Contrast with, say, tennis where if they just invited the top 8 players in the world to the slams they'd probably get just about the same results as they do today.

Louis Oosthuizen is not a "great", but nobody was beating him at the Open in 2010. Tiger or Jack would have needed his A+ game to beat that. Even with his A++ game, I don't think Gary Player could have beat Louis. Same thing with Stenson last year (to an even greater degree) - not sure anybody short of Tiger 2000 could have topped that.

Today, there are way more Louis Oosthuizens and Henrik Stensons - guys capable of four days' worth of great play. Furthermore (and this is the real kicker), those guys actually play in all the majors. That just wasn't the case in the past - the golf world was much more divided. Jack and Gary and a few others played them all but almost nobody else did.

Like I said, go look at the field of the Open Championship when Gary Player won in 1959 and tell me that's comparable to a major today. Even Arnie didn't play the Open every year through the 60s. And the tier of American players below that definitely didn't regularly play in the Open in those days.

On the other side, consider a guy like Sandy Lyle. A notch below Faldo/Seve/Norman, but still one of the best players of the 1980s.
Despite winning two majors, he played in only six US Opens and just 1 PGA Championship once during that entire decade. There is no way that would happen today.

You make some valid points but todays players are a product of tech. They are almost all mentally weaker because they rely so much on instruction, equipment and trackman #s. thats why someone like stenson had to get to that age before winning a major. Flawless ball striker below average driver, average putter shortgame so he finally figured out hit 3 wood 90% of the time and voila has his best 4 years. There were no G5s in the 50s-60s-70s-80s so alot of europeans didnt come here and vice versa. Same happened in tennis. Nobody went to the australian open in the 60s-70s even 80s. Doesnt diminish anything. People played the british open with smaller balls and theres no asterix next to their names. Sandy Lyle was also a shy introvert who didnt like playing over here. Norman relished it. Faldo, montgomerie, etc.. hated it. Cant blame either of them. Look at the phoenix open this week there are 30-40 players that wont play there ever, they hate it.

lowheel · February 4, 2017

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.

Golf is very much an "any given Sunday game" - the best player doesn't win - or even contend - every week. And "greats" don't play great every week. However, with enough good players, you're pretty much guaranteed that somebody will actually _play_ great that week.
Contrast with, say, tennis where if they just invited the top 8 players in the world to the slams they'd probably get just about the same results as they do today.

Louis Oosthuizen is not a "great", but nobody was beating him at the Open in 2010. Tiger or Jack would have needed his A+ game to beat that. Even with his A++ game, I don't think Gary Player could have beat Louis. Same thing with Stenson last year (to an even greater degree) - not sure anybody short of Tiger 2000 could have topped that.

Today, there are way more Louis Oosthuizens and Henrik Stensons - guys capable of four days' worth of great play. Furthermore (and this is the real kicker), those guys actually play in all the majors. That just wasn't the case in the past - the golf world was much more divided. Jack played them all but almost nobody else did.

Like I said, go look at the field of the Open Championship when Gary Player won in 1959 and tell me that's comparable to a major today. Arnie didn't play the Open every year through the 60s. And the tier of American players below that definitely didn't regularly play in the Open in those days.

On the other side, consider a guy like Sandy Lyle. A notch below Faldo/Seve/Norman, but still one of the best players of the 1980s.
Despite winning two majors, he played in only six US Opens and just 1 PGA Championship once during that entire decade. There is no way that would happen today.

You do make some fair points, many of which are quite factual. However, I would still maintain that Tiger had no real adversaries, yes, you can take the odd week in anyones' career when somebody may get hot that week in any era, but that doesn't alter that Jacks adversaries were so much more competitive with him than any of Tigers were, so equalizing out the excellent points you make, and making Jacks Major achievements all the more worthy.

Also, if you look at the issue of adversaries, Jack finished 2nd in Majors more than 10 times to the likes of Ballesteros, Player, Palmer, Trevino and Watson combined. Yet the only time that Tiger finished 2nd in a Major, was to Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson, Y.E. Yang, Rich Beem and Michael Campbell. Those guys got hot that week as you said, but you could hardly put them in the same category of the likes of the previous 5 I mentioned surely? Which kind of re-emphasises Woods' lack of adversaries argument.

Hand on a minute...................I said that I wasn't going to comment on this Tiger v Jack issue again...............bugger! :stop:

Exatcly, 1 hit wonders not hall of famers or all time greats, big difference.

jay65 · February 4, 2017

Lowheel?? You are very naughty boy.....now off to bed with no hot chocolate.....go on, off you go.

cdnglf · February 4, 2017

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.

Golf is very much an "any given Sunday game" - the best player doesn't win - or even contend - every week. And "greats" don't play great every week. However, with enough good players, you're pretty much guaranteed that somebody will actually _play_ great that week.
Contrast with, say, tennis where if they just invited the top 8 players in the world to the slams they'd probably get just about the same results as they do today.

Louis Oosthuizen is not a "great", but nobody was beating him at the Open in 2010. Tiger or Jack would have needed his A+ game to beat that. Even with his A++ game, I don't think Gary Player could have beat Louis. Same thing with Stenson last year (to an even greater degree) - not sure anybody short of Tiger 2000 could have topped that.

Today, there are way more Louis Oosthuizens and Henrik Stensons - guys capable of four days' worth of great play. Furthermore (and this is the real kicker), those guys actually play in all the majors. That just wasn't the case in the past - the golf world was much more divided. Jack played them all but almost nobody else did.

Like I said, go look at the field of the Open Championship when Gary Player won in 1959 and tell me that's comparable to a major today. Arnie didn't play the Open every year through the 60s. And the tier of American players below that definitely didn't regularly play in the Open in those days.

On the other side, consider a guy like Sandy Lyle. A notch below Faldo/Seve/Norman, but still one of the best players of the 1980s.
Despite winning two majors, he played in only six US Opens and just 1 PGA Championship once during that entire decade. There is no way that would happen today.

You do make some fair points, many of which are quite factual. However, I would still maintain that Tiger had no real adversaries, yes, you can take the odd week in anyones' career when somebody may get hot that week in any era, but that doesn't alter that Jacks adversaries were so much more competitive with him than any of Tigers were, so equalizing out the excellent points you make, and making Jacks Major achievements all the more worthy.

Also, if you look at the issue of adversaries, Jack finished 2nd in Majors more than 10 times to the likes of Ballesteros, Player, Palmer, Trevino and Watson combined. Yet the only time that Tiger finished 2nd in a Major, was to Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson, Y.E. Yang, Rich Beem and Michael Campbell. Those guys got hot that week as you said, but you could hardly put them in the same category of the likes of the previous 5 I mentioned surely? Which kind of re-emphasises Woods' lack of adversaries argument.

Hang on a minute...................I said that I wasn't going to comment on this Tiger v Jack issue again...............bugger! :stop:

Funny, for me its not so much Tiger vs Jack as an objection to downgrading the other players of today because they didn't win as many majors as guys in the past.

Tiger vs Jack has been beaten to death. Jack's career totals haven't changed in 30 years, and its increasingly looking like Tiger's won't either.

Take Phil, for example. For some reason, you seem to have him ranked below Seve and Trevino.

To me, that's crazy - I think he's a top ten player all-time, in the mix with Palmer/Player/Watson.

5 majors isn't that great for a player of that calibre, but 45 PGA Tour wins in this era is incredible.

That's well past Seve and Trevino - those guys are more comparable to Ernie and Vijay.

jay65 · February 4, 2017

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.

Golf is very much an "any given Sunday game" - the best player doesn't win - or even contend - every week. And "greats" don't play great every week. However, with enough good players, you're pretty much guaranteed that somebody will actually _play_ great that week.
Contrast with, say, tennis where if they just invited the top 8 players in the world to the slams they'd probably get just about the same results as they do today.

Louis Oosthuizen is not a "great", but nobody was beating him at the Open in 2010. Tiger or Jack would have needed his A+ game to beat that. Even with his A++ game, I don't think Gary Player could have beat Louis. Same thing with Stenson last year (to an even greater degree) - not sure anybody short of Tiger 2000 could have topped that.

Today, there are way more Louis Oosthuizens and Henrik Stensons - guys capable of four days' worth of great play. Furthermore (and this is the real kicker), those guys actually play in all the majors. That just wasn't the case in the past - the golf world was much more divided. Jack played them all but almost nobody else did.

Like I said, go look at the field of the Open Championship when Gary Player won in 1959 and tell me that's comparable to a major today. Arnie didn't play the Open every year through the 60s. And the tier of American players below that definitely didn't regularly play in the Open in those days.

On the other side, consider a guy like Sandy Lyle. A notch below Faldo/Seve/Norman, but still one of the best players of the 1980s.
Despite winning two majors, he played in only six US Opens and just 1 PGA Championship once during that entire decade. There is no way that would happen today.

You do make some fair points, many of which are quite factual. However, I would still maintain that Tiger had no real adversaries, yes, you can take the odd week in anyones' career when somebody may get hot that week in any era, but that doesn't alter that Jacks adversaries were so much more competitive with him than any of Tigers were, so equalizing out the excellent points you make, and making Jacks Major achievements all the more worthy.

Also, if you look at the issue of adversaries, Jack finished 2nd in Majors more than 10 times to the likes of Ballesteros, Player, Palmer, Trevino and Watson combined. Yet the only time that Tiger finished 2nd in a Major, was to Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson, Y.E. Yang, Rich Beem and Michael Campbell. Those guys got hot that week as you said, but you could hardly put them in the same category of the likes of the previous 5 I mentioned surely? Which kind of re-emphasises Woods' lack of adversaries argument.

Hang on a minute...................I said that I wasn't going to comment on this Tiger v Jack issue again...............bugger! :stop:

Funny, for me its not so much Tiger vs Jack as an objection to downgrading the other players of today because they didn't win as many majors as guys in the past.
Tiger vs Jack has been beaten to death. Jack's career totals haven't changed in 30 years, and its increasingly looking like Tiger's won't either.

Take Phil, for example. For some reason, you seem to have him ranked below Seve and Trevino.
To me, that's crazy - I think he's a top ten player all-time, in the mix with Palmer/Player/Watson.
5 majors isn't that great for a player of that calibre, but 45 PGA Tour wins in this era is incredible.
That's well past Seve and Trevino - those guys are more comparable to Ernie and Vijay.

It's great to have the right to different opinions though eh? :taunt:

Hawkeye77 · February 4, 2017

Too bad, maybe you could have learned something.

The only thing I learn from Tiger fanboys is that they will never acknowledge that Nicklaus is more accomplished and at the very least he is in the conversation of GOAT (and he didn't even get to courses weeks prior like pros do today - his family life was as important or more to him than even winning).

LOL, in the conversation?

Jack continues to golf's greatest champion.

Tiger still in his holding pattern at No. 2.

And of course Jack practiced on courses for the majors ahead of the tourneys. Known for it.

cdnglf · February 4, 2017

It's great to have the right to different opinions though eh? :taunt:

Absolutely.

Hawkeye77 · February 4, 2017

It's great to have the right to different opinions though eh? :taunt:

Absolutely.

Absolutely not! ;-)

bscinstnct · February 4, 2017

Did Trevino or Watson change their minds yet?

lowheel · February 4, 2017

Lowheel?? You are very naughty boy.....now off to bed with no hot chocolate.....go on, off you go.

Its still early here! :rofl:

Hawkeye77 · February 4, 2017

Did Trevino or Watson change their minds yet?

Ha, just jumped on the bandwagon to irk Jack.

BillyZ2 · February 4, 2017

I'm glad Tiger is done, now we won't have to listen to The Tiger Woods show at every PGA event.

The Badger7 · February 4, 2017

Theirs many New Tour Players to look up too...they are the Players to focus on but I'm hoping Tiger has one more chance to play To Win...

Forged4ever · February 4, 2017

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.
All relative to competition, and it was definitely lacking. 5-10 great players in jack's era with 20 or so notables. 20-30 great players in and throughout the Tiger era and at least 100 more notable ones. Easy for a big fish to APPEAR even bigger in that small of a pond, but put him in lake and see the greatness vastly diminished. Take half the GOOD field out for Tiger in his hey-day and see that win total in a whole new light....

Jack might be the GREATEST golfer in history in terms of accomplishment, but TW is the BEST golfer of all time based on sheer skill level and shot making ability. Anybody that doubts this is fooling themselves, and it would've been embarrassing for THAT 'field' to have seen his skill set come along several decades earlier, had he been born sooner.

Your hear this argument a lot but if you go look at some ratings of the top 20 or 25 players of all time and see how many are from each era of golf, I don't think it holds even a tiny bit of water.

Couldn't agree more but hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion, lol

I've always said that I feel that Jack is the Greatest Champion and Tiger the Greatest Golfer/Player and we were at a function at Trump National in Jupiter, Fla(a Nicklaus Design) during the autumn of 2012 and I asked Jack if, based on Tiger's resume(this was before his last "big" year) it was fair to say that "You are the Greatest Champion of All Time and Tiger, the Greatest Golfer," and he kind of chuckled and replied "I wouldn't argue with that." He also agreed that for that two year stretch, no one has EVER Played at the level that Tiger did, EVER.

The funny thing was that a guy sitting at the table next to Jack, a Class A from Fla, I'm guessing early/mid 60's disagreed with me, stating simply "Bobby Jones 1930."

I looked across the table at Jack, who let out a laugh and sat back in his chair and said simply, "two of those victories were against Amateurs, it's not apples to apples."

That's from the GOAT's mouth(and my second fave behind Sam). That's good enough for me.

Nice post Bro?

Have a nice evening,

Richard

acy274 · February 4, 2017

Eldrick has had 3 Back surgeries, you can see how he walks after a swing on the course that he is in discomfort. I have had 3 back surgeries and I cannot play more than two days in a row and I swing nothing like Eldrick. I can't imagine what his back goes through when he swings.

Navy Seals workouts, HGH, steroids abuse along with the injuries that his body has undergone through the years.

Eldrick is finished, kaput, done.
I'm no fan boi , however unless you are privy to information that has escaped the media and public's attention and scrutiny, the "HGH, steroids abuse" comment is just the typical WRX sheep in the herd garbage that gets repeated over and over and......

The 'HgH/steroids' crowd are mostly a bunch of herbs that have never set foot in a gym other than to walk on the treadmill and grind out a few sets on the 'yes/no' machine.

playa · February 4, 2017

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.

Jack didn't play the same Augusta as Tiger. One look at him and the members decided the course needed to be tiger proofed before he turned their tournament into a pitch and putt. They never felt the need to Jack proof the course. Tigrr only played the same course Jack won his jackets omce, and we saw what he did to it. Not an apples to apples to comparison. As for tiger saying Jack was the best, that was him respecting Jacks superior record and being polite. Plenty of guys who played with prime Jack say that Tiger is the best player they have ever seen.

Tazz4629 · February 4, 2017

I just heard a pretty interesting thing said by David Duval (watching the Phoenix Open coverage). David said when he first started having some health issues, his confidence was directly affected.

When Tiger first began having problems with his body parts, it directly affects his confidence. Health, Mechanics, and Metal. Those three things Tiger needs. Without those lining up, he will never play competitive golf again. And David would be the guy who knows this!!!

Go back to the 2008 cheating scandel with his ex wife. Ever since then its been downhill for Tiger. Charma's a b**** huh

Also I just heard Michael Jordan said something "I love the guy so much, I just can't bring myselft to tell him he will never be great again". Well if MJ can't tell the guy then who tell him?

And some dumb duge on the morning golf show said "hey who knows Tiger might move to Alaska" WTF? Alaska? Tiger has enough money to buy several Islands and retire with no media around. (but then again, he is the cheapest guy ever so that one is out).

Now wait.

How many tournaments and majors did he win while cheating?

If anything, Karma loved the cheating and just seemed to mind when he got caught.

UM HELL NO!!!!!. The cheating caught up to him and Karma took over.

When people cheat, they don't get caught immediately, and they think they are invisible. Take Lance Armstrong, he got away with it for a very long time, then he got caught. Take all the baseball players, they all cheating and won for a long time, then they eventually get caught and they are done.

Nobody gets away from Karma. Thats why she's such a b****!

Stretch, Motley.

Armstromg and ped bball users had their professional accomplishments destroyed.

Not the case for TW, his professional wins stand for all to see. Unchallenged.

14 Majors. 79 PGA Tour wins. The best to ever play the game.

Your beef is that TW cheated on his wife. Along with 50% of the rest of the world.

If karma cared about that, half the guys you know would be fired from their jobs tomorrow in your very loose interpretation of Hinduism ; )

Eldrick is still 2nd best when compared to Jack. Eldrick is not the GOAT and no one except fan boys remember that he is maybe 2nd

A.Princey · February 4, 2017

I equate the level of play back in the day to this; there were a few guys that were really good, passing the trophies back-and-forth cause they were the only ones that could win it. Jack just happened to be best of that group and held them up the most..... No trophy passing these days, majors are won from the field, not chased by a few...

mosesgolf · February 4, 2017

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.
All relative to competition, and it was definitely lacking. 5-10 great players in jack's era with 20 or so notables. 20-30 great players in and throughout the Tiger era and at least 100 more notable ones. Easy for a big fish to APPEAR even bigger in that small of a pond, but put him in lake and see the greatness vastly diminished. Take half the GOOD field out for Tiger in his hey-day and see that win total in a whole new light....

Jack might be the GREATEST golfer in history in terms of accomplishment, but TW is the BEST golfer of all time based on sheer skill level and shot making ability. Anybody that doubts this is fooling themselves, and it would've been embarrassing for THAT 'field' to have seen his skill set come along several decades earlier, had he been born sooner.

Your hear this argument a lot but if you go look at some ratings of the top 20 or 25 players of all time and see how many are from each era of golf, I don't think it holds even a tiny bit of water.
Couldn't agree more but hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion, lol

I've always said that I feel that Jack is the Greatest Champion and Tiger the Greatest Golfer/Player and we were at a function at Trump National in Jupiter, Fla(a Nicklaus Design) during the autumn of 2012 and I asked Jack if, based on Tiger's resume(this was before his last "big" year) it was fair to say that "You are the Greatest Champion of All Time and Tiger, the Greatest Golfer," and he kind of chuckled and replied "I wouldn't argue with that." He also agreed that for that two year stretch, no one has EVER Played at the level that Tiger did, EVER.

The funny thing was that a guy sitting at the table next to Jack, a Class A from Fla, I'm guessing early/mid 60's disagreed with me, stating simply "Bobby Jones 1930."

I looked across the table at Jack, who let out a laugh and sat back in his chair and said simply, "two of those victories were against Amateurs, it's not apples to apples."

That's from the GOAT's mouth(and my second fave behind Sam). That's good enough for me.

Nice post Bro��

Have a nice evening,
Richard

AND Bobby Jones only had to beat a field of about 600 during his US AM era. And how many of those guys could REALLY play? How many guys do you have to go through now-globally? Your assessment is spot on. :) Would Wilt Chamberlin score 100 points in today's NBA? How about sprinter's from Jesse Owens era vs Usain Bolt's era or how would John McEnrow/Bjorn Borg fair against the Djoker, Nadal & Federer in his prime? Sorry folks but Tiger > Jack.

RBImGuy · February 5, 2017

Nicklaus you remember as he won the 86 Masters, sure he never won after, maybe even struggled but Tiger you remember as the guy that did end his career with a 7i that his wife beat him with then the Sean Foley third generation swing that broke his back and then you see him limping around on a bad back thinking, what did happen? that guy had such a great promise?

Tiger made a ton of bad decisions and it has consequences.