Poll: Will Tiger Break Jacks Major Record?

[cdnglf]

You have to make it through 3 tourneys just to get to that top 30 though, so it's the best of who's left by that time. It's got to be at least close.

 

It is not close. For every player in the Tour Championship, there's an equivalent or better player in the Masters. Plus another 55 or so other legit Pros.

 

https://datagolf.ca/...-strength-table

 

The average player in the Tour Championship averaged 1.4 shots per round better than an average player, in an average event. The Masters was only .35 shots.

 

So, while there are fewer players in the TC, each is playing at a higher level - Which is why they are there in the first place.

 

Comparing "average player quality" is useless when the fields are of different sizes.

The "average player quality" of the top 30 is higher than the average of the top 100, but obviously it is more difficult to beat all the top 100 than just the top 30.

 

 

What other event would you draw parallel to the TC?

 

Tournament of Champions is the only other event with a similarly tiny field, although not as many of the top guys play.

[deadsolid...shank]

If he gets 1 in 2019 I would say the chances of getting to 18 is 25%. If he somehow gets 2 in 2019 his chances are 75%+. If none are won in 2019 his chances are probably 5% of ever reaching it.

 

However, this is just like the winnng percentage odds on NFL Gamecast, the 99% likely scenarios can teeter-totter in the other direction in just one play(win). If he can get 2 by 45 he's still got an outside chance. Barring injury, I feel his game can hold up for about 5 strong years. I'd laugh if he had a Tom Watson moment in 15y and actually pulled it off to tie Jack or surpass him!

 

I wonder if Jack ever ponders a scenario where Tiger never falls from glory, never has injuries and asks himself, "To what heights could Tiger have really ascended if he'd never been set back for an entire decade???"

 

Why should he? are we pretending that injuries were the only reason his play fell off? Longevity matters. Nobody told Tiger to change his swing after Yang took him down. His biggest asset is also his biggest weakness, his ego. It took an entire season of hitting score crippling bad drives to figure out that he shouldnt swing out of his shoes and use a shaft that promotes a tighter flight. Lets see what the W does for him next year but the what if game goes both ways.

 

I wonder if Tiger ever ponders a scenario where Watson and Trevino don’t hole out from off the green, or Watson doesn’t fire a 65 to Jack’s 66 in 77, and he’s now seven behind instead of four.

 

The “what if” theory works for almost everyone, and in multiple directions too.

 

Although it is fair to wonder, in regards to Tiger, what might have been.

[bscinstnct]

 

 

Tournament of Champions is the only other event with a similarly tiny field, although not as many of the top guys play.

 

So those 2 events have similar field strength?

 

Just trying to understand how weakly you rate the TC.

 

An event with the the entire top 30 OWGR.

 

Are you saying its like winning the Tournament of Champions?

 

How about a full field event?

 

Or would you say its harder to win the John Deere than the TC?

[youdamantiger]

Against these soft as Charmin chumps, anything is possible.

[Hawkeye77]

If he gets 1 in 2019 I would say the chances of getting to 18 is 25%. If he somehow gets 2 in 2019 his chances are 75%+. If none are won in 2019 his chances are probably 5% of ever reaching it.

 

However, this is just like the winnng percentage odds on NFL Gamecast, the 99% likely scenarios can teeter-totter in the other direction in just one play(win). If he can get 2 by 45 he's still got an outside chance. Barring injury, I feel his game can hold up for about 5 strong years. I'd laugh if he had a Tom Watson moment in 15y and actually pulled it off to tie Jack or surpass him!

 

I wonder if Jack ever ponders a scenario where Tiger never falls from glory, never has injuries and asks himself, "To what heights could Tiger have really ascended if he'd never been set back for an entire decade???"

 

Why should he? are we pretending that injuries were the only reason his play fell off? Longevity matters. Nobody told Tiger to change his swing after Yang took him down. His biggest asset is also his biggest weakness, his ego. It took an entire season of hitting score crippling bad drives to figure out that he shouldnt swing out of his shoes and use a shaft that promotes a tighter flight. Lets see what the W does for him next year but the what if game goes both ways.

 

I wonder if Tiger ever ponders a scenario where Watson and Trevino don't hole out from off the green, or Watson doesn't fire a 65 to Jack's 66 in 77, and he's now seven behind instead of four.

 

The "what if" theory works for almost everyone, and in multiple directions too.

 

Although it is fair to wonder, in regards to Tiger, what might have been.

 

Yep, bring the 19 seconds into play for Jack and the "what ifs" don't really favor Tiger.

 

I don't buy the old "Tiger was always going for the win" stuff - that should include a record of a lot more close calls. It's more about his inconsistency vs. Jack's consistency and mind when it comes to majors and not selling Tiger short on his mental fortitude, but Jack wasn't losing balls where he shouldn't the way Tiger can and has.

 

Just different guys and still the two greatest ever.

[youdamantiger]

"If yes, does he become undisputed GOAT?" How could you answer NO to this question?

 

In that scenario, he would have more majors than Jack (let's say 19) and at current level he would have a minimum of 85 PGA Tour wins. If that's not the GOAT, there never was one.

 

While I agree with you, 4 people have voted No so far. I'd like to know what Tiger would have to do to be the GOAT for those people? 20 majors, 95 wins?

The question was "would he be undisputed goat", correct? Have you been reading wrx posts? I had to say no as there would be posts saying no even if Woods somehow finished 20-100.

 

Just as there are those who would grant him the crown even if he had finished with 10-60.

[Pent08]

If he gets 1 in 2019 I would say the chances of getting to 18 is 25%. If he somehow gets 2 in 2019 his chances are 75%+. If none are won in 2019 his chances are probably 5% of ever reaching it.

 

However, this is just like the winnng percentage odds on NFL Gamecast, the 99% likely scenarios can teeter-totter in the other direction in just one play(win). If he can get 2 by 45 he's still got an outside chance. Barring injury, I feel his game can hold up for about 5 strong years. I'd laugh if he had a Tom Watson moment in 15y and actually pulled it off to tie Jack or surpass him!

 

I wonder if Jack ever ponders a scenario where Tiger never falls from glory, never has injuries and asks himself, "To what heights could Tiger have really ascended if he'd never been set back for an entire decade???"

 

Why should he? are we pretending that injuries were the only reason his play fell off? Longevity matters. Nobody told Tiger to change his swing after Yang took him down. His biggest asset is also his biggest weakness, his ego. It took an entire season of hitting score crippling bad drives to figure out that he shouldnt swing out of his shoes and use a shaft that promotes a tighter flight. Lets see what the W does for him next year but the what if game goes both ways.

 

I wonder if Tiger ever ponders a scenario where Watson and Trevino don't hole out from off the green, or Watson doesn't fire a 65 to Jack's 66 in 77, and he's now seven behind instead of four.

 

The "what if" theory works for almost everyone, and in multiple directions too.

 

Although it is fair to wonder, in regards to Tiger, what might have been.

 

Yep, bring the 19 seconds into play for Jack and the "what ifs" don't really favor Tiger.

 

I don't buy the old "Tiger was always going for the win" stuff - that should include a record of a lot more close calls. It's more about his inconsistency vs. Jack's consistency and mind when it comes to majors and not selling Tiger short on his mental fortitude, but Jack wasn't losing balls where he shouldn't the way Tiger can and has.

 

Just different guys and still the two greatest ever.

 

With a seemingly untouchable win percentage and cut streak, I'm not sure Tiger can be labeled "inconsistent".

 

As for the poll, it's pretty improbable that Tiger gets to 18, much less surpasses Jack. I want him to prove me wrong.

[cdnglf]

 

Tournament of Champions is the only other event with a similarly tiny field, although not as many of the top guys play.

 

So those 2 events have similar field strength?

 

Just trying to understand how weakly you rate the TC.

 

An event with the the entire top 30 OWGR.

 

Are you saying its like winning the Tournament of Champions?

 

How about a full field event?

 

Or would you say its harder to win the John Deere than the TC?

 

The TC has a better field than the ToC, but it does _not_ have the entire top 30 OWGR.

 

Compared to the full field events, I don't know exactly... let's say better than the John Deere and not as good as Riveria.

 

Speaking of the John Deere, why is that the tournament that TC defenders invariably mention? For all intents and purposes, it is an opposite field event.

[redfirebird08]

 

Tournament of Champions is the only other event with a similarly tiny field, although not as many of the top guys play.

 

So those 2 events have similar field strength?

 

Just trying to understand how weakly you rate the TC.

 

An event with the the entire top 30 OWGR.

 

Are you saying its like winning the Tournament of Champions?

 

How about a full field event?

 

Or would you say its harder to win the John Deere than the TC?

 

The TC has a better field than the ToC, but it does _not_ have the entire top 30 OWGR.

 

Compared to the full field events, I don't know exactly... let's say better than the John Deere and not as good as Riveria.

 

Speaking of the John Deere, why is that the tournament that TC defenders invariably mention? For all intents and purposes, it is an opposite field event.

 

I think the John Deere tourney is harder to win than any 30 man event, just my two cents. That Deere tourney is always a birdie-fest too, so it's one of those where you have to bring your A game to keep up.

[youdamantiger]

I think a better question maybe if he ties jack on 18 majors with the amount of pga tour victories he will have does that put him ahead? And does it then if it doesnt already, become the biggest comeback in sport?

 

If he tied Jack I would have to call them co-GOATS. Tiger would have more regular Tour wins but Jack would have more seconds and top fives in majors. The second Tiger wins number 19, however, I have no problem proclaiming him the GOAT. As far as the greatest comeback in golf, it would be pretty hard to beat Hogan getting hit by a bus and then winning the US Open 16 months later.

[bscinstnct]

 

Tournament of Champions is the only other event with a similarly tiny field, although not as many of the top guys play.

 

So those 2 events have similar field strength?

 

Just trying to understand how weakly you rate the TC.

 

An event with the the entire top 30 OWGR.

 

Are you saying its like winning the Tournament of Champions?

 

How about a full field event?

 

Or would you say its harder to win the John Deere than the TC?

 

The TC has a better field than the ToC, but it does _not_ have the entire top 30 OWGR.

 

Compared to the full field events, I don't know exactly... let's say better than the John Deere and not as good as Riveria.

 

Speaking of the John Deere, why is that the tournament that TC defenders invariably mention? For all intents and purposes, it is an opposite field event.

 

Ok, just curious.

 

Im suspect that somebody outside the top 30 owgr wins many events that include the top 30 owgr.

 

We can reference major/full field events that include the top 30 owgr to verify or dispute that.

 

Even mentioning the the tournament of champions vs the TC doesnt merit any discussion, imo

 

As far as the John Deere, Im not really sure what the deal is with it, just know everybody puts it down, lol ; )

[drewtaylor21]

I know this is WRX and the internet and all....but I'm absolutely dumbfounded that there are actually 18 people that wouldn't list Tiger as GOAT even with 19 majors.

 

I mean....what?!?

[lowheel]

Why are Majors valued so much higher? They're just a slightly deeper field and in some cases not even a deeper field depending on who makes it to the weekend. Why do they carry so much value? Why isn't the TC considered as deep a field as a major value wise for example?

 

Embarrassing post...

[lowheel]

 

Tournament of Champions is the only other event with a similarly tiny field, although not as many of the top guys play.

 

So those 2 events have similar field strength?

 

Just trying to understand how weakly you rate the TC.

 

An event with the the entire top 30 OWGR.

 

Are you saying its like winning the Tournament of Champions?

 

How about a full field event?

 

Or would you say its harder to win the John Deere than the TC?

 

The TC has a better field than the ToC, but it does _not_ have the entire top 30 OWGR.

 

Compared to the full field events, I don't know exactly... let's say better than the John Deere and not as good as Riveria.

 

Speaking of the John Deere, why is that the tournament that TC defenders invariably mention? For all intents and purposes, it is an opposite field event.

 

I think the John Deere tourney is harder to win than any 30 man event, just my two cents. That Deere tourney is always a birdie-fest too, so it's one of those where you have to bring your A game to keep up.

 

Because it is under any metric.Its a statistical fact.Nothing wrong with that statement.

[Hawkeye77]

If he gets 1 in 2019 I would say the chances of getting to 18 is 25%. If he somehow gets 2 in 2019 his chances are 75%+. If none are won in 2019 his chances are probably 5% of ever reaching it.

 

However, this is just like the winnng percentage odds on NFL Gamecast, the 99% likely scenarios can teeter-totter in the other direction in just one play(win). If he can get 2 by 45 he's still got an outside chance. Barring injury, I feel his game can hold up for about 5 strong years. I'd laugh if he had a Tom Watson moment in 15y and actually pulled it off to tie Jack or surpass him!

 

I wonder if Jack ever ponders a scenario where Tiger never falls from glory, never has injuries and asks himself, "To what heights could Tiger have really ascended if he'd never been set back for an entire decade???"

 

Why should he? are we pretending that injuries were the only reason his play fell off? Longevity matters. Nobody told Tiger to change his swing after Yang took him down. His biggest asset is also his biggest weakness, his ego. It took an entire season of hitting score crippling bad drives to figure out that he shouldnt swing out of his shoes and use a shaft that promotes a tighter flight. Lets see what the W does for him next year but the what if game goes both ways.

 

I wonder if Tiger ever ponders a scenario where Watson and Trevino don't hole out from off the green, or Watson doesn't fire a 65 to Jack's 66 in 77, and he's now seven behind instead of four.

 

The "what if" theory works for almost everyone, and in multiple directions too.

 

Although it is fair to wonder, in regards to Tiger, what might have been.

 

Yep, bring the 19 seconds into play for Jack and the "what ifs" don't really favor Tiger.

 

I don't buy the old "Tiger was always going for the win" stuff - that should include a record of a lot more close calls. It's more about his inconsistency vs. Jack's consistency and mind when it comes to majors and not selling Tiger short on his mental fortitude, but Jack wasn't losing balls where he shouldn't the way Tiger can and has.

 

Just different guys and still the two greatest ever.

 

With a seemingly untouchable win percentage and cut streak, I'm not sure Tiger can be labeled "inconsistent".

 

As for the poll, it's pretty improbable that Tiger gets to 18, much less surpasses Jack. I want him to prove me wrong.

 

Well, inconsistency in rounds and across rounds at majors is why he has 14 and not more, and why he has an appalling lack of top 3s compared with the greatest player ever. So, yes, easy to call him inconsistent in that context. His win% and cut streak really have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[Pigems]

Why are Majors valued so much higher? They're just a slightly deeper field and in some cases not even a deeper field depending on who makes it to the weekend. Why do they carry so much value? Why isn't the TC considered as deep a field as a major value wise for example?

 

Embarrassing post...

 

If that’s how you see it. But technically It’s just another tournament, another 4 rounds of golf. For example, If you playing against the top 50 players in tournament A, Why is it worth more than playing against the same top 50 players in tournament B just because B is not a Major and A is? Why should one be worth more? How did the Majors become Majors and worth more than normal tournaments? It was an honest question.

[PowderedToastMan]

Make whatever arguments you want about who’s the greatest, but I KNOW Tiger is the better golfer. Anyone who thinks otherwise is off their rocker. Jack was sustained greatness and incredibly consistent. Tiger obliterated courses and the field, playing golf at a level we haven’t seen from anyone before or since.

 

Seriously, we are talking about old man, pieced back together Tiger winning 5 more majors. That’s more majors than Jordan Spieth has, 4 more than Rose, current world number 1. Put that in perspective when remembering how good Tiger was.

 

As for the GOAT argument, Jack played golf while Bill Russell was winning 10 championships with the Celtics. No one considers Russell the GOAT. Skill is definitely an aspect of determining the GOAT.

[FootWedge16]

Make whatever arguments you want about who’s the greatest, but I KNOW Tiger is the better golfer. Anyone who thinks otherwise is off their rocker. Jack was sustained greatness and incredibly consistent. Tiger obliterated courses and the field, playing golf at a level we haven’t seen from anyone before or since.

 

Seriously, we are talking about old man, pieced back together Tiger winning 5 more majors. That’s more majors than Jordan Spieth has, 4 more than Rose, current world number 1. Put that in perspective when remembering how good Tiger was.

 

As for the GOAT argument, Jack played golf while Bill Russell was winning 10 championships with the Celtics. No one considers Russell the GOAT. Skill is definitely an aspect of determining the GOAT.

 

And there isn’t a person on the planet that would argue that basketball was played during those days at the level it is today.

 

Now golf on the other hand...

[tatertot]

Make whatever arguments you want about who’s the greatest, but I KNOW Tiger is the better golfer. Anyone who thinks otherwise is off their rocker. Jack was sustained greatness and incredibly consistent. Tiger obliterated courses and the field, playing golf at a level we haven’t seen from anyone before or since.

 

Seriously, we are talking about old man, pieced back together Tiger winning 5 more majors. That’s more majors than Jordan Spieth has, 4 more than Rose, current world number 1. Put that in perspective when remembering how good Tiger was.

 

As for the GOAT argument, Jack played golf while Bill Russell was winning 10 championships with the Celtics. No one considers Russell the GOAT. Skill is definitely an aspect of determining the GOAT.

 

Well, if YOU know it, what are the rest of us even here for?

[bscinstnct]

50% yes/maybe

 

Guy couldnt walk last year.

 

Remarkable.

 

How is he doing this?!

[tatertot]

50% yes/maybe

 

Guy couldnt walk last year.

 

Remarkable.

 

How is he doing this?!

 

Quit making stuff up ... He was scuba diving last year. Yes, he could walk. His comeback is amazing, there is no need to embellish.

[Hawkeye77]

Make whatever arguments you want about who's the greatest, but I KNOW Tiger is the better golfer. Anyone who thinks otherwise is off their rocker. Jack was sustained greatness and incredibly consistent. Tiger obliterated courses and the field, playing golf at a level we haven't seen from anyone before or since.

 

Seriously, we are talking about old man, pieced back together Tiger winning 5 more majors. That's more majors than Jordan Spieth has, 4 more than Rose, current world number 1. Put that in perspective when remembering how good Tiger was.

 

As for the GOAT argument, Jack played golf while Bill Russell was winning 10 championships with the Celtics. No one considers Russell the GOAT. Skill is definitely an aspect of determining the GOAT.

 

Not so fast.

 

Russell won 11, don't slight him. Saying Jack played while Russell was winning is disingenuous. Russell was done as of 1969. Nicklaus only had 7 of his 18 majors by then. Jack's career went on WAY beyond 1969, lol. Who cares if he started in 1962? Really not making sense as an argument or comparison. Who cares whether anyone considers Russell the "GOAT" just because his career ended in 1969. Russell vs. Chamberlain as best center was an argument that raged forever and poor Kareem often came out on the short end of that argument and if you want to argue centers - you still start with Russell, Chamberlain and Kareem in the conversation. I'll argue with you forever Larry Bird is the best forward EVER to play basketball and can back it up, others will choose other players and can back it up, those arguments never end and are fun to have but I don't think someone is off their rocker to choose Elgin Baylor or some recent and obvious choices. Different game being played, different eras, but recent talent to eyes that have just seen recent talent and seen it 24/7 in today's world isn't the same as experiencing and witnessing talent through the ages. I'd love to be transported back to watch Old Tom, Jones, Hagen, Hogan, vintage Snead, Venturi, you name it. I don't discount their singular talents because I grew up watching Jack and others of his era.

 

Better "golfer" - depends on how you define that for sure. But it's far from being off anyone's "rocker" to suggest Jack Nicklaus was a better golfer than Tiger Woods for any number of reasons.

 

Tiger FINALLY wins and folks are going nuts. It's exciting, was fun to watch, but boy has the volume level been turned up again and nobody is worthy other than Tiger, lol.

[Hawkeye77]

Make whatever arguments you want about who's the greatest, but I KNOW Tiger is the better golfer. Anyone who thinks otherwise is off their rocker. Jack was sustained greatness and incredibly consistent. Tiger obliterated courses and the field, playing golf at a level we haven't seen from anyone before or since.

 

Seriously, we are talking about old man, pieced back together Tiger winning 5 more majors. That's more majors than Jordan Spieth has, 4 more than Rose, current world number 1. Put that in perspective when remembering how good Tiger was.

 

As for the GOAT argument, Jack played golf while Bill Russell was winning 10 championships with the Celtics. No one considers Russell the GOAT. Skill is definitely an aspect of determining the GOAT.

 

And there isn't a person on the planet that would argue that basketball was played during those days at the level it is today.

 

Now golf on the other hand...

 

It was different and in many ways a lot better than the basketball being played today and thousands of knowledgeable basketball fans would argue that point every day of the week.

 

You want to see high level team basketball, watch some games played by the Havlicek prime era Celtics, the Clyde Knicks, Maravich in his prime, some incredible Denver teams in the 70s, Dr. J era Sixers, Chamberlain era Lakers, Magic era Lakers, to some "those days" include Jordan era Bulls, lol.

 

Perspective people.

 

And if you love Tiger, enjoy! Big Cat is incredible.

 

Just try not to lose your mind, lol.

[Hawkeye77]

50% yes/maybe

 

Guy couldnt walk last year.

 

Remarkable.

 

How is he doing this?!

 

And happy for you man! Enjoy El Tigre!

[deadsolid...shank]

Make whatever arguments you want about who's the greatest, but I KNOW Tiger is the better golfer. Anyone who thinks otherwise is off their rocker. Jack was sustained greatness and incredibly consistent. Tiger obliterated courses and the field, playing golf at a level we haven't seen from anyone before or since.

 

Seriously, we are talking about old man, pieced back together Tiger winning 5 more majors. That's more majors than Jordan Spieth has, 4 more than Rose, current world number 1. Put that in perspective when remembering how good Tiger was.

 

As for the GOAT argument, Jack played golf while Bill Russell was winning 10 championships with the Celtics. No one considers Russell the GOAT. Skill is definitely an aspect of determining the GOAT.

 

Not so fast.

 

Russell won 11, don't slight him. Saying Jack played while Russell was winning is disingenuous. Russell was done as of 1969. Nicklaus only had 7 of his 18 majors by then. Jack's career went on WAY beyond 1969, lol. Who cares if he started in 1962? Really not making sense as an argument or comparison. Who cares whether anyone considers Russell the "GOAT" just because his career ended in 1969. Russell vs. Chamberlain as best center was an argument that raged forever and poor Kareem often came out on the short end of that argument and if you want to argue centers - you still start with Russell, Chamberlain and Kareem in the conversation. I'll argue with you forever Larry Bird is the best forward EVER to play basketball and can back it up, others will choose other players and can back it up, those arguments never end and are fun to have but I don't think someone is off their rocker to choose Elgin Baylor or some recent and obvious choices. Different game being played, different eras, but recent talent to eyes that have just seen recent talent and seen it 24/7 in today's world isn't the same as experiencing and witnessing talent through the ages. I'd love to be transported back to watch Old Tom, Jones, Hagen, Hogan, vintage Snead, Venturi, you name it. I don't discount their singular talents because I grew up watching Jack and others of his era.

 

Better "golfer" - depends on how you define that for sure. But it's far from being off anyone's "rocker" to suggest Jack Nicklaus was a better golfer than Tiger Woods for any number of reasons.

 

Tiger FINALLY wins and folks are going nuts. It's exciting, was fun to watch, but boy has the volume level been turned up again and nobody is worthy other than Tiger, lol.

 

Wells said Hawkeye. But it’s all for naught becasue he KNOWS. Thank goodness he didn’t say period or we would all have to pack up our keyboards and go home. That would have really been definitive.

[bscinstnct]

50% yes/maybe

 

Guy couldnt walk last year.

 

Remarkable.

 

How is he doing this?!

 

Quit making stuff up ... He was scuba diving last year. Yes, he could walk. His comeback is amazing, there is no need to embellish.

 

Im not saying it

 

He is saying it,

 

“Just to be able to compete and play again this year – that’s a hell of a comeback. I was beyond playing. I couldn’t sit.

 

I couldn’t walk.

 

I couldn’t lay down without feeling the pain in my back and my leg. That was a pretty low point for a very long time.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/sport/golf/1022252/Tiger-Woods-Tour-Championship-Ryder-Cup-I-could-not-walk/amp

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

LOL deadsolid, and Powdered is fun and passionate and could whip my butt at golf for sure - just trying to stick up for some of us who know the "good old days" to be a little more than just that!

 

Edit: was afraid of over quoting!

[deadsolid...shank]

Make whatever arguments you want about who's the greatest, but I KNOW Tiger is the better golfer. Anyone who thinks otherwise is off their rocker. Jack was sustained greatness and incredibly consistent. Tiger obliterated courses and the field, playing golf at a level we haven't seen from anyone before or since.

 

Seriously, we are talking about old man, pieced back together Tiger winning 5 more majors. That's more majors than Jordan Spieth has, 4 more than Rose, current world number 1. Put that in perspective when remembering how good Tiger was.

 

As for the GOAT argument, Jack played golf while Bill Russell was winning 10 championships with the Celtics. No one considers Russell the GOAT. Skill is definitely an aspect of determining the GOAT.

 

And there isn't a person on the planet that would argue that basketball was played during those days at the level it is today.

 

Now golf on the other hand...

 

It was different and in many ways a lot better than the basketball being played today and thousands of knowledgeable basketball fans would argue that point every day of the week.

 

You want to see high level team basketball, watch some games played by the Havlicek prime era Celtics, the Clyde Knicks, Maravich in his prime, some incredible Denver teams in the 70s, Dr. J era Sixers, Chamberlain era Lakers, Magic era Lakers, to some "those days" include Jordan era Bulls, lol.

 

Perspective people.

 

And if you love Tiger, enjoy! Big Cat is incredible.

 

Just try not to lose your mind, lol.

 

Basketball was so much better (and yes, I realize how old that makes me sound!) until the started letting the Pistons employ their “thuggery” tactics. To me, that’s when the purity of the game started to go away.

 

As much as I hated the Lakers, was there anything more majestic than watching a Magic led fastbreak (usually culminating in a Worthy flying one handed dunk)?

[deadsolid...shank]

LOL deadsolid, and Powdered is fun and passionate and could whip my butt at golf for sure - just trying to stick up for some of us who know the "good old days" to be a little more than just that!

 

Edit: was afraid of over quoting!

 

There seems to be a lot vitriol flowing in the Tour forum today. It’s almost like it’s February and we’ve been snowed in for several months.

 

Must be Tiger and Ryder Cup combination.

[tatertot]

50% yes/maybe

 

Guy couldnt walk last year.

 

Remarkable.

 

How is he doing this?!

 

Quit making stuff up ... He was scuba diving last year. Yes, he could walk. His comeback is amazing, there is no need to embellish.

 

Im not saying it

 

He is saying it,

 

“Just to be able to compete and play again this year – that’s a hell of a comeback. I was beyond playing. I couldn’t sit.

 

I couldn’t walk.

 

I couldn’t lay down without feeling the pain in my back and my leg. That was a pretty low point for a very long time.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/sport/golf/1022252/Tiger-Woods-Tour-Championship-Ryder-Cup-I-could-not-walk/amp

 

Where did he say that he couldn't walk last year? And, again, his photos and accounts of free diving with his kids tell a different story.