Third best player of all time?

sir_templar2 · May 24, 2017

No love for Tom Watson here?

Mark_888 · May 24, 2017

OK, you tell my why (according to Jack Nicklaus) Phil Mickelson deserves to be one Time Magazine 25 Heroes of 2010, just because he loves his family and stands behind his wife (as far as we know) when she had cancer? How many other people on the planet with cancer had a spouse them stood behind them also? Millions? Tens of Millions?

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1984685,00.html

deadsolid...shank · May 24, 2017

I don't know if or why he deserves anything. Apparently the way he goes about his family life impresses Jack (maybe because it's similar to how Jack approached the struggle to balance family and tournament golf?). And Jack expressed his feelings and opinions on the subject, we all know Jack is opinionated and ready to share those opinions.

The real question is how someone can stretch that into it being an attack on Tiger. That's purely someone who doesn't like the guy and is simply reaching (and a long, long reach it is) for something negative. There is absolutely NOTHING that can link his praise of Mickelson to Tiger, except a vivid imagination.

Mark_888 · May 24, 2017

Whatever Jack thinks about Phil Mickelson is fine. Claiming that Mickelson is one of the 25 heroes in the entire world for 2010 because he is a family man is something different. I will stick by my interpretation of why Nicklaus wrote that, but everyone obviously has the own opinion.

Personally, unlike a lot of people on this forum, I am not a hater. I don't hate Mickelson, Nicklaus, Christie Kerr, Poulter, Horschel, PXG, TM, Calloway, Ping, Brandel Chamblee, Lexi, Dottie, Lanny Watkins, etc. I don't hate any of them. Well, maybe Chamblee, but I don't hate the others.

Peanut191 · May 24, 2017

You really should seek help.

Forged4ever · May 24, 2017

Jack didn't attack anyone, passively or overtly ;)

He stated in front of Madison, Bob Ford, my Tour Bud and I that he was perfectly comfortable with Tiger being classified as the "Greatest Golfer" and he as the "Greatest Champion." When I'm belly to belly with someone, and I was the one who phrased the question to him(to which Madison kicked me under the table, lmao), I watch the body language, facial expressions and reaction to my questions and he showed absolutely no reservation nor did I or anyone else present(Bob Ford later commented how "gracious" Jack had been regarding Tiger anytime his name came up and Bob had had two separate lunches where it was Tiger, Jack and Bob) detect that he was saying this to be "PC."

I know nothing about his feelings towards Phil as I never asked him, nor did he mention him, however I myself and maybe Madison will jump in because I'm sure she would concur, regarding Tiger's professional career and accomplishments, and this is the only area that we touched on, Jack had the utmost respect for Tiger.

Oh yea, Bob Jones was one of his "heros" and I changed the subject because he said he wouldn't discuss theoreticals,ie., how Jones would have fared if he indeed had turned Pro in 1926, only what he actually achieved, which he said was the "greatest feat the game has seen."

This time Madison nudged me with her knee, lmao, but I just STFU :)

Have a great day/evening Gents?

My Best?

RP

tatertot · May 24, 2017

Let's see, do I put more stock in the comments from the man who has sat down and broke bread with Mr. Nicklaus personally (Richard) or the keyboard psychologist who may or may not be stalking Jack at this very moment (Mark_888) ...

pickerjohn · May 24, 2017

Walter Hagen

Forged4ever · May 24, 2017

Yea, but bear in mind I'm the same idiot that swore that I read that Bob Jones didn't give up his Am status, lol

Sometimes I'm Fairways & Greens and occasionally bunkers & rough ;)

Occasionally it's nice to have Madison as My fact check :)

Occasionally ;)

Have a great day Tater?

My Best?

RP

bunter101 · May 24, 2017

Only one mention of Bobby Locke... 10 pages... Snead couldn't live with him!

Mark_888 · May 24, 2017

How come very few on this forum agrees with Jack, that Tiger is the greatest golfer of all time?

deadsolid...shank · May 24, 2017

Have you read any of the countless threads? It's damn near a 50/50 split on who posters think is the GOAT.

tatertot · May 24, 2017

First of all, Jack is a gentleman, and that is the gentlemanly thing to do.

Secondly, most will admit they are neck and neck, fairly equals. When it gets ugly is when a Tiger backer tries to justify that Tiger's 14 is somehow better than Jack's 18 ... or Tiger won the Grand Slam ... or Tiger has won the most PGA events of all time ...

dan360 · May 24, 2017

He's at lucky #7.

Shilgy · May 24, 2017

Got ya. So it is ok to post the reasons for Jack? 18>14 Bunch of failures seconds and thirds in majors. But Tiger supporters should just say "because" or better yet nothing? Jack is the greatest major champion and no one has taken that away. Tiger is the best I have seen and I saw both in their prime.

Shilgy · May 24, 2017

On the subject of Jones and how high to rank him. Winning the seven US Opens and British Opens is impressive no doubt. But much of his ranking is based on winning all four the one year. And two of those were the amateurs. Isolate the two Amateurs in one year-are you really all that impressed by a man who should have been a pro winning those two events? His worst wining margin in his six amateur wins was 7&6. He had a more difficult time wining the Open events. Does that mean he played better in the Amateurs or that perhaps the theory that the amateurs back then had a better field than the pros is bunk? Personally I am with Richard. Playing for fun is a lot simpler than playing for a living. And Jones had mental and health issues just playing for fun/pride.

Put it this way. If a Dustin Johnson stayed amateur would you really be impressed by him winning a lot of amateur titles?

Forged4ever · May 24, 2017

HowTF would I know???

Seriously ;)

As DeadSolid stated, I believe that far far more than "very few" agree however even if that is correct, how am I supposed to answer that question?

The only thing worse than rhetorical questions are those that have no answer

Regardless, have a great day

Regards,

RP

tatertot · May 24, 2017

Shilgy, your arguments are generally valid. You are correct, Jack failed to close the deal a bunch of times. Tiger NEVER lost a major once he had the lead after 54. Tiger in 2000 was like a force of nature. These are solid arguments for Tiger.

It gets tiresome when people try to "prove" Tiger faced better comp, or some of Snead's wins shouldn't count, or the Tiger Slam is "better" than the Grand Slam ...

dan360 · May 24, 2017

Opinions...

cdnglf · May 24, 2017

But why can't that be a possibility?

I think a lot of people take the notion of "major" as it exists today, project it back to the 1960s (or even the 1920s), and evaluate guys from yesteryear based on that. But that's fallacious thinking - the truth is that the majors in their current form only go back maybe 30 years.

Today, all the majors invite all the top 50 (or more), and virtually everyone who is eligible and uninjured shows up. Everyone considers them to be the four most important tournaments in the game. They are all essentially equal - they give each other's champions 5 year exemptions, all the majors count as official PGA Tour wins, and are worth a 5 year PGA Tour membership exemption.

This is not true historically. The Open didn't count as an official Tour event until the 1990s. In the 40s and 50s it was a curiosity - Hogan played it once, won it, and didn't bother to defend. It wasn't remotely as important as the US Open, and didn't draw nearly as good a field. Thru the 60s into at least the early 70s, the Open field was more like the Australian Open today - a few headliners to boost the event's profile, and a bunch of guys named "who". What kind of a "major" is it, when Casper, Floyd, sometimes even Arnold Palmer, etc don't even bother to show up? How can that be considered equivalent to the Open today, which (almost) nobody ever misses?

The best Euro players didn't play the PGA consistently until the mid-1980s - go look at how many times Seve, Faldo, Langer, Woosnam and Lyle missed it. Pretty sure it also had a lot more club pros in the field, although I'm having trouble tracking down a definitive reference. Its a lot easier to rack up top-3s when a bunch of your competition is missing.

Shilgy · May 24, 2017

Jacks' record in majors is easily the best ever. Tiger did face MORE competition, not necessarily better. When the tour changed the wins list they did not go deep enough imo. But it's my opinion not everyone's. Why the old team events count-then the Tiger/Duval or Couples/Love World Cups do not-and now the new two man do is ludicrous imo. The Tiger Slam is not "better". Winning four in a row is obviously difficult. No one else has ever done so(and no I do not count Amateurs) but having to start in a certain order is harder.

isaacbm · May 24, 2017

These threads are hilarious to me.

So basically, the Montreal Canadians from the 50's are the best hockey team of all time and they would beat todays Penguins?? Really? Because they won

more championships? Really? Are you sure??

bscinstnct · May 24, 2017

GOAT

Forged4ever · May 24, 2017

No truer statement has been posted on these various topics that you touch on!

Nicely Played?

My only thing with Jack, and this was also discussed and he admitted that he did not have the intimidation factor over the field that Tiger had in his prime. Jack said that there were 6-8 guys that he knew if they were with 3 strokes of him, they were going to give him everything that they had(that was the number that he used) versus he said that most of the Tiger's competitors, mentally at least, if they were 3 strokes behind him at 54 holes, were more worried about protecting their spot at second place than trying to run Tiger down.

There was one individual that he named specifically who apparently was sitting 4 strokes behind Tiger at a PGA Championship after 54 and Jack wished him well and said with a round like he apparently had had in a Tourney 2-3 weeks before where he made up 5 strokes over the final 18 for a victory and he responded to Jack, "I'm not planning on it because ***** ********* isn't Tiger."

I couldn't fathom even thinking that, much less admitting it to arguably the Greatest Champion of them all. I'd be embarrassed to even think bullshat like that.

Anyhoo, I don't know how much that mattered though Jack seemed to believe that against Tiger, 98%(again, his number) of the field was beaten before they even teed off.

Have a great day Bro?

Richard

lowheel · May 24, 2017

You do realize tiger has already said several times jack is the greatest as well right? Shocking right? Its professional courtesy. Jack is secure in his legacy and a very humble guy. Tiger is the same. They both let the #s speak for themselves

lowheel · May 24, 2017

Strawman argument if ive ever seen one. Team sports are not comparable.

Heres a question for you how come 1 won all his majors in a 10 year span yet the other over 25 years? If older is crappier one should have been done as soon as the era changed but it didnt though?

isaacbm · May 24, 2017

For the sake of debate, please argue that old Tom Morris was a "better Player" and "depth of field doesn't matter" compared to say Curtis Strange or Mark Omera, or John Daly, or any other player from the last 20 years that "only" has 2 majors.

lowheel · May 24, 2017

Heres the thing, youve made this argument several times and i dont understand how nicklaus loses points because $ and crossatlantic travel was a luxury back then. You realize the top tennis pros never played the australian open in the 60s 70s and most of the 80s. Borg who won 6 wimbledons on grass didnt even bother to go to 1. The aussie open was played on grass back then. How would borgs major record look like if he played there? Mcenroe connors etc all skipped it. The reasoning was it cost more to go and play even if you won so why bother. Borg famously said the swedish government takes half and my travel and hotel takes the other half so whats the point? Today top pros are travelling in g5s with beds and masseuses swing gurus sports psychologists etc...so lets not go overboard elevating one era over the other.

In the end i knew tiger was done with majors in 2009 after the pga. The look on his face after yang stuffed that hybrid on 18 and holed that putt to clinch it was epic. He knew it. 2010 validated this when he started missing short putt after short putt during majors. I knew then for sure his totals wouldnt change and that tiger fans would then begin mental gymnastics to elevate tigers record an diminish jacks. As we see in this thread that campaign is in full effect. No real arguments being made just constant digs diminishing eras and accomplishements. I know you stand on the hill the majors since 1985 are far superior then the majors prior therefore tiger majors>jack majors. Ask yourself would you be making this argument if tiger had tied or surpassed jack in majors? Probably not.

AdamSecrest · May 24, 2017

Exactly! Pages and pages of extolling the virtues of golfers from 40+ years ago.

This isn't going to be a popular opinion but it truly is my opinion. One that is based on evidence from all other endeavors that people regularly pursue. As in, the golfers of today have had the benefit of learning from all those that came before them. Golfers today have so many more advantages and resources (trainers, mental coaches, etc but excluding equipment).

Golfers of today are "better" than golfers of the past. Defining better and comparing individual golfers directly is difficult because of changing equipment and course conditions. Comparing records of golfers from different eras, in my mind, is virtually meaningless. I think you have to go on the reaction of older golfers to the younger ones.

Jones saying Nicklaus plays a game in which he's not familiar.

Golf commentators and older competitors freaking out about things Woods could do.

I'm not sure who the top three should be but it definitely doesn't include any golfers who played before 1950.

lowheel · May 24, 2017

Easy, dominance over peers. Next

Sign In

Third best player of all time?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Forged4ever

PGArox

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites