Third best player of all time?

[lowheel]

No love for Tom Watson here?

 

Im shocked he never got to double digit majors or a career slam. He was always in the last 2-3 groups of majors. How many masters and opens slipped out of his hands...

[lowheel]

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."

 

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

 

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 ...

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.

 

Failures? You just proved the point he was making and that i get on you for. You tear down ones accomplishements to elevate the other.tiger is the greatest youve seen? Thats Great, bit the #s dont bear this out other wise hed have more majors and more top 5s in majors. Look at the difference in arguing in reverse in tennis. Federer is clearly the goat. What youre arguing now is that nadal or djokovic are even though they have 4 and 5 less majors they are better because you saw all three in their prime and so on... see how it doesn make sense? Those guys are 5-6 years apart and jack and tiger are35 years apart but #s dont lie. As unfair as it seems thats how it is.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I wonder if old-timers used to send telegraphs to people saying that Walter Hagen was better all time than Ben Hogan because he won more majors.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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."

 

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

 

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 ...

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.

 

Failures? You just proved the point he was making and that i get on you for. You tear down ones accomplishements to elevate the other.tiger is the greatest youve seen? Thats Great, bit the #s dont bear this out other wise hed have more majors and more top 5s in majors. Look at the difference in arguing in reverse in tennis. Federer is clearly the goat. What youre arguing now is that nadal or djokovic are even though they have 4 and 5 less majors they are better because you saw all three in their prime and so on... see how it doesn make sense? Those guys are 5-6 years apart and jack and tiger are35 years apart but #s dont lie. As unfair as it seems thats how it is.

 

Bingo!

[cdnglf]

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."

 

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

 

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 ...

 

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.

 

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.

 

Its not about Nicklaus "losing points", its recognition that not all major wins throughout history are equal, and thus 18 > 14 doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I don't particularly have a dog in this fight: if you were to review my comment history I doubt you'd think of me as a Tiger fan. I start with the data and see where it leads, rather than starting with a guy and seeing what data I can find to support him.

[isaacbm]

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??

 

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?

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.

 

Easy, dominance over peers. Next

 

Therefore I am a better player for winning the Valley Ridge club championship three years in a row (even though the next lowest handicap at the club was a 3 and I was a 0 ) then whoever won the Oak Mount Club championship two years in a row playing against 20 other scratch golfers .

 

Gotcha

[isaacbm]

Old Tom Morris would have trouble winning the b-flight net division at my club championship.

 

His 2 round winning score was 170 !

 

Come on !

 

They were 20 guys in the field the one year he won and one of them was a walk-on on vacation!

The starter said to him "well we have a tournament going today so there's no available times unless you'd like to join in the fourth last group ! "

 

He shot 195 for two rounds and finished seventh in the Open that year!

[bscinstnct]

"There are 10 Lee Trevinos today"

 

-Paul Goydos

[tatertot]

Old Tom Morris would have trouble winning the b-flight net division at my club championship.

 

His 2 round winning score was 170 !

 

Come on !

 

They were 20 guys in the field the one year he won and one of them was a walk-on on vacation!

The starter said to him "well we have a tournament going today so there's no available times unless you'd like to join in the fourth last group ! "

 

He shot 195 for two rounds and finished seventh in the Open that year!

 

Yeah, because Old Tom would shoot the same score today as he did with wood clubs and a feathery ball playing golf on a cow pasture. Of course scores were different. Golf was different! You have to think that if Tom Morris were alive today, he may train a little different, use slightly different equipment, and play on slightly better courses.

[Forged4ever]

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??

See, THESE are the types of questions that I hate?

 

You change when the season rolls around!!

 

You go from a kind supportive Gentleman to a condescending know it all dick???

 

I like it?

 

ALOT!!

 

Stay well my Friend?

RP

[tatertot]

"There are 10 Lee Trevinos today"

 

-Paul Goydos

 

Paul Goydos wouldn't have made the Tour in the 60s. He would have been folding shirts as an assitant pro in some shop at a muni somewhere. Goydos isn't a pimple on a champions butt, and he knows it.

[lowheel]

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??

 

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?

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.

 

Easy, dominance over peers. Next

 

Therefore I am a better player for winning the Valley Ridge club championship three years in a row (even though the next lowest handicap at the club was a 3 and I was a 0 ) then whoever won the Oak Mount Club championship two years in a row playing against 20 other scratch golfers .

 

Gotcha

 

Lol at the mental gymnastics youre doing...

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Old Tom Morris would have trouble winning the b-flight net division at my club championship.

 

His 2 round winning score was 170 !

 

Come on !

 

They were 20 guys in the field the one year he won and one of them was a walk-on on vacation!

The starter said to him "well we have a tournament going today so there's no available times unless you'd like to join in the fourth last group ! "

 

He shot 195 for two rounds and finished seventh in the Open that year!

 

Yeah, because Old Tom would shoot the same score today as he did with wood clubs and a feathery ball playing golf on a cow pasture. Of course scores were different. Golf was different! You have to think that if Tom Morris were alive today, he may train a little different, use slightly different equipment, and play on slightly better courses.

 

I'm sure the mechanics would fall right in line with the modern game.

[Forged4ever]

"There are 10 Lee Trevinos today"

 

-Paul Goydos

I like Goydos but he's an idiot?????

 

"There are 10 Lee Trevinos today"???????

 

Really????

 

GTFOH???

 

Oh, a few of you jamokes agree with him???!

 

Name em!!!

 

Gimme the list????

 

Jesus, Isaac is right, this just keeps gettin better & better!!

 

My Best?

RP

[tatertot]

Old Tom Morris would have trouble winning the b-flight net division at my club championship.

 

His 2 round winning score was 170 !

 

Come on !

 

They were 20 guys in the field the one year he won and one of them was a walk-on on vacation!

The starter said to him "well we have a tournament going today so there's no available times unless you'd like to join in the fourth last group ! "

 

He shot 195 for two rounds and finished seventh in the Open that year!

 

Yeah, because Old Tom would shoot the same score today as he did with wood clubs and a feathery ball playing golf on a cow pasture. Of course scores were different. Golf was different! You have to think that if Tom Morris were alive today, he may train a little different, use slightly different equipment, and play on slightly better courses.

 

I'm sure the mechanics would fall right in line with the modern game.

 

He played to his equipment ... if you knew anything about golf, or it's history, which is evident by your posts you don't, you would know something about this.

 

What do you think Tiger's swing would like with a wooden club and a feathery ball?

 

The more you post, the more I think of this Mark Twain quote ...

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

[isaacbm]

Lowheel

 

In all seriousness, I really do think these kinds of threads are ridiculous. And they tend to bring out the most ridiculous part of my own personality.

I believe that any of the great players from any generation can basically be transported into the modern generation and still be a factor. But the idea that Jack Nichlaus would have the record that he does if his career started in 1990 and went till today ?

 

There's no way that any sane person can make that argument.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Old Tom Morris would have trouble winning the b-flight net division at my club championship.

 

His 2 round winning score was 170 !

 

Come on !

 

They were 20 guys in the field the one year he won and one of them was a walk-on on vacation!

The starter said to him "well we have a tournament going today so there's no available times unless you'd like to join in the fourth last group ! "

 

He shot 195 for two rounds and finished seventh in the Open that year!

 

Yeah, because Old Tom would shoot the same score today as he did with wood clubs and a feathery ball playing golf on a cow pasture. Of course scores were different. Golf was different! You have to think that if Tom Morris were alive today, he may train a little different, use slightly different equipment, and play on slightly better courses.

 

I'm sure the mechanics would fall right in line with the modern game.

 

He played to his equipment ... if you knew anything about golf, or it's history, which is evident by your posts you don't, you would know something about this.

 

What do you think Tiger's swing would like with a wooden club and a feathery ball?

 

The more you post, the more I think of this Mark Twain quote ...

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

 

Hey, man, I said I'm sure it would translate into the modern game. He's be a Crossfit bro today, I'm sure. You shouldn't assume things you don't know. I'm not new to this game. I never played with a feathery, but I have definitely played with 1960s and 1970s equipment. Grew up on it. We have a tourney every year called The Vintage, where we all have to play with the older stuff. It goes shorter, it's less forgiving, yes. Hit it solid, however, and it goes where you want it to go. I'll tell you this as well: a crushed drive with persimmon and a balata feels WAY better to me than one with a 917D. FWIW.

[Mitchell]

"There are 10 Lee Trevinos today"

 

-Paul Goydos

In context, Goydos was speaking regarding 'adaptive personalities' that don't match actual disposition-not ability to play the game. Goydos is well-known for unfiltered opinions.

[bscinstnct]

"There are 10 Lee Trevinos today"

 

-Paul Goydos

 

Paul Goydos wouldn't have made the Tour in the 60s. He would have been folding shirts as an assitant pro in some shop at a muni somewhere. Goydos isn't a pimple on a champions butt, and he knows it.

 

 

I shudder to think what *we* are in the golf spectrum if Goydos isn't even a butt pimple : )

[tatertot]

Lowheel

 

In all seriousness, I really do think these kinds of threads are ridiculous. And they tend to bring out the most ridiculous part of my own personality.

I believe that any of the great players from any generation can basically be transported into the modern generation and still be a factor. But the idea that Jack Nicholas would have the record that he does if his career started in 1990 and went till today ?

 

There's no way that any sane person can make that argument.

 

Dude, you misspelled Nicklaus.

[Peanut191]

Alright guys, there are plenty of Tiger vs Jack threads around here to post in, so let's stay on topic.

 

Isaac, I'm interested to hear who you have pegged as 3rd, since you joined the conversation?

[bscinstnct]

"There are 10 Lee Trevinos today"

 

-Paul Goydos

In context, Goydos was speaking regarding 'adaptive personalities' that don't match actual disposition-not ability to play the game. Goydos is well-known for unfiltered opinions.

 

 

"There are 10 Lee Trevinos today," he said. "And the only time there's more depth than today is tomorrow."

 

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2009/8/11/there-are-10-lee-trevinos-today.html

[joey2aces]

3rd?? probably between Tiger and Snead.... I'd go Snead.

[bscinstnct]

3rd?? probably between Tiger and Snead.... I'd go Snead.

 

“Sam doesn’t know a damn thing about the golf swing,” Hogan was quoted saying by Curt Sampson, who wrote “Hogan,” a biography. “But he hits the ball better than anyone else . . . If he could have played golf with my brain, he would be the only name in the record book.”

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/randall-mell/1912-year-changed-game-sultans-swing/

[Slackattack]

You give Old Tom Morris a 460CC driver, a ProV1x, and, perhaps most importantly, a modern day golf attire that is not as restrictive as a sport coat....... well.....I'm not sure there is anyone around today that would beat him.

[bscinstnct]

How come no love for

 

Harry "Stannis" Vardon?

 

 

[isaacbm]

Lowheel

 

In all seriousness, I really do think these kinds of threads are ridiculous. And they tend to bring out the most ridiculous part of my own personality.

I believe that any of the great players from any generation can basically be transported into the modern generation and still be a factor. But the idea that Jack Nicholas would have the record that he does if his career started in 1990 and went till today ?

 

There's no way that any sane person can make that argument.

 

Dude, you misspelled Nicklaus.

talk to text

[Darth Putter]

You give Old Tom Morris a 460CC driver, a ProV1x, and, perhaps most importantly, a modern day golf attire that is not as restrictive as a sport coat....... well.....I'm not sure there is anyone around today that would beat him.

 

Young Tom Morris?

[Darth Putter]

In absolute terms, yes the human athletes of today are more physically gifted, have better training ( and no need for an offseason job), better equipment and so on.

 

But if you were to equalize all that between the ages to where it was settled by heart and the six inches between the ears, then you'd know the true champion.

[Peanut191]

Lowheel

 

In all seriousness, I really do think these kinds of threads are ridiculous. And they tend to bring out the most ridiculous part of my own personality.

I believe that any of the great players from any generation can basically be transported into the modern generation and still be a factor. But the idea that Jack Nicholas would have the record that he does if his career started in 1990 and went till today ?

 

There's no way that any sane person can make that argument.

 

Dude, you misspelled Nicklaus.

talk to text

 

You must have missed where I asked about who you'd pick as the 3rd best golfer. So, I'm just going to guess...... I know, it's THRILLHOUSE!