Poll: Will Tiger Break Jacks Major Record?

[youdamantiger]

No. The fields seem to be getting deeper and deeper.

 

So deep they just got pantsed by a 42 year old man a year removed from a spinal fusion. Yeah, they're world-beaters.

[youdamantiger]

Give it 20 years, eventually Tiger will win the goat title. Whether he wins 5 more majors or retires this December, eventually people will adequately appreciate his "best" and how long that it was sustained.

 

How long a player sustains his best is an argument for Jack, not Tiger. Jack was on top for 19 years, competitive for 27. Tiger was on top for 14 years, competitive for 15.

 

Tiger certainly won't have the GOAT title in 20 years because some young buck will come along, win 10 majors and 60 regular events, and be proclaimed the GOAT based on strength of field.

 

And since Tiger fans are on record being against objective measurements like number of major victories they won't have a leg to stand on in this future debate.

[Event^Horizon]

No. The fields seem to be getting deeper and deeper.

 

So deep they just got pantsed by a 42 year old man a year removed from a spinal fusion. Yeah, they're world-beaters.

 

Are you inferring that TW will win every tournament he enters here on out? I mean your contempt for the rest of the Tour is obvious.

[bscinstnct]

No. The fields seem to be getting deeper and deeper.

 

So deep they just got pantsed by a 42 year old man a year removed from a spinal fusion. Yeah, they're world-beaters.

 

Are you inferring that TW will win every tournament he enters here on out? I mean your contempt for the rest of the Tour is obvious.

 

Do you know

 

Cool Runnings?

 

; )

[Shilgy]

Give it 20 years, eventually Tiger will win the goat title. Whether he wins 5 more majors or retires this December, eventually people will adequately appreciate his "best" and how long that it was sustained.

 

How long a player's sustains his best is an argument for Jack, not Tiger. Jack was on top for 19 years, competitive for 27. Tiger was on top for 14 years, competitive for 15.

 

Tiger certainly won't have the GOAT title in 20 years because some young buck will come along, win 10 majors and 60 regular events, and be proclaimed the GOAT based on strength of field.

 

And since Tiger fans are on record being against objective measurements like number of major victories they won't have a leg to stand on in this future debate.

Sounds like the Brady Bunch. Majors majors majors instead of Marcia Marcia Marcia.

How about total wins? No shenanigans required. Since Tiger was only "competitive" some 12 years less than Jack you would surely think Jack would have more wins.

[youdamantiger]

No. The fields seem to be getting deeper and deeper.

 

So deep they just got pantsed by a 42 year old man a year removed from a spinal fusion. Yeah, they're world-beaters.

 

Are you inferring that TW will win every tournament he enters here on out? I mean your contempt for the rest of the Tour is obvious.

 

I do have contempt for the rest of the Tour now. No one likes getting duped. I feel like I was sold a bill of goods. Like I purchased a 2019 Ferrari Portofino and when I showed up at the dealership I was handed the keys to a 2012 Kia Optima. All we've heard from Golf Media and the Tour is "These guys are good." Maybe the slogan should have been "These guys are...meh."

 

I honestly don't care that they got taken out by Tiger. He's been trending in a great direction and a win seemed like the logical next step. But don't tell me how deep and talented the fields are now and how hard it is to win when a guy who has basically been retired for five years just pulled it off. It's tantamount to pissing on my leg and telling me it's rain.

 

The only generational player in this bunch is Rory. And given his propensity for collapsing at critical times and being a mediocre putter his winning days may be behind him at the ripe old age of 30. What we've got on Tour at present are a group of players with talent a mile wide and desire an inch deep.

[youdamantiger]

Give it 20 years, eventually Tiger will win the goat title. Whether he wins 5 more majors or retires this December, eventually people will adequately appreciate his "best" and how long that it was sustained.

 

How long a player's sustains his best is an argument for Jack, not Tiger. Jack was on top for 19 years, competitive for 27. Tiger was on top for 14 years, competitive for 15.

 

Tiger certainly won't have the GOAT title in 20 years because some young buck will come along, win 10 majors and 60 regular events, and be proclaimed the GOAT based on strength of field.

 

And since Tiger fans are on record being against objective measurements like number of major victories they won't have a leg to stand on in this future debate.

Sounds like the Brady Bunch. Majors majors majors instead of Marcia Marcia Marcia.

How about total wins? No shenanigans required. Since Tiger was only "competitive" some 12 years less than Jack you would surely think Jack would have more wins.

 

Using total wins smacks of shifting the goalposts in the middle of the game. No one has ever claimed Sam Snead was the GOAT because he had more wins. Major wins have always been the criteria since the days of Bobby Jones. Changing it now just because your horse collapsed a few furlongs before the finish line is unfair.

[lowheel]

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.

 

You mean "you believe". you realize how arrogant your post sounds right? If you dont think Jack obliterated courses and fields stop posting all together. you cant ever compare team sports and individual sports

No, you stop posting. For I am PowderedToastMan the wise.

 

Jack dominated, but not like Tiger. 15 stroke victory at Pebble 2000! I say I know Tiger is better because I've watched them both play with my own eyes, and Tiger's game was better in nearly every way when firing on all cylinders. Then there's all the greats who've also stated that Tiger is better than Jack.

 

Don't get me wrong, Jack was incredible. Tiger though is another level. You will recall that he won 4 majors in a row, two of those by a combined 22 strokes? I don't care if you guys want to be grumpy old farts, but take some extra indigestion medicine when I say you are wrong if you think Jack was a better golfer than Tiger Woods. That's just absurd. Just stick with saying Jack is the greatest major champion, heck I'm fine with calling him the GOAT, but he wasn't the best player. I understand that barely makes sense, but I think you know what I mean.

 

I'm not even going to get started on basketball. Let's pretend I never brought it up.

 

Yeah Tiger was on such another level he has half the top 10s and half the top 5s in majors of jack not to mention never winning one from behind... yeah he had 2 once in a lifetime performances in majors to Jacks 1. Youre just too young and edgy for everyone in here calling anybody old farts for simply pointing out the fallacies in your posts. By sheer definition the best player ever should have the most majors.thats how it works in tennis and thats how it works in golf. Youre simply upset that Tiger is at 14 and Jack is at 18 and the only way you can close that gap is by implying he wasnt as good as tiger... come up with better talking points when youre ready to have a real conversation.

[lowheel]

What's jack/tiger's major winning percentage per event played???? Oh, yeah, and if you ain't first you're last, so no runner up talk. First place losers don't get much mention unless you're Jack or Phil.....

 

So why the excitement for tigers 2nd at the pga? right???

[lowheel]

How did Jack end up with so few total wins? There were like 5 good players when he was playing. Honestly, he should easily have 130+ victories.

 

How did tiger not win more majors? There were like 5 good players when he was playing. Honestly, he should easily have 25+ victories.

 

See how ludicrous that sounds?

[lowheel]

Give it 20 years, eventually Tiger will win the goat title. Whether he wins 5 more majors or retires this December, eventually people will adequately appreciate his "best" and how long that it was sustained.

 

How long a player's sustains his best is an argument for Jack, not Tiger. Jack was on top for 19 years, competitive for 27. Tiger was on top for 14 years, competitive for 15.

 

Tiger certainly won't have the GOAT title in 20 years because some young buck will come along, win 10 majors and 60 regular events, and be proclaimed the GOAT based on strength of field.

 

And since Tiger fans are on record being against objective measurements like number of major victories they won't have a leg to stand on in this future debate.

Sounds like the Brady Bunch. Majors majors majors instead of Marcia Marcia Marcia.

How about total wins? No shenanigans required. Since Tiger was only "competitive" some 12 years less than Jack you would surely think Jack would have more wins.

 

Of course you think that, you have to shift the goalposts somehow to close the gap. Shil, weve had this conversation hundreds of times and you always say the same thing. If jack had the amount of majors tiger had and vice versa youd be singing a different tune and you know it. "why are majors so important??" yeah right. give me a break.I guess you have snead ahead of Tiger right? ... come on man

[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.

 

You mean "you believe". you realize how arrogant your post sounds right? If you dont think Jack obliterated courses and fields stop posting all together. you cant ever compare team sports and individual sports

No, you stop posting. For I am PowderedToastMan the wise.

 

Jack dominated, but not like Tiger. 15 stroke victory at Pebble 2000! I say I know Tiger is better because I've watched them both play with my own eyes, and Tiger's game was better in nearly every way when firing on all cylinders. Then there's all the greats who've also stated that Tiger is better than Jack.

 

Don't get me wrong, Jack was incredible. Tiger though is another level. You will recall that he won 4 majors in a row, two of those by a combined 22 strokes? I don't care if you guys want to be grumpy old farts, but take some extra indigestion medicine when I say you are wrong if you think Jack was a better golfer than Tiger Woods. That's just absurd. Just stick with saying Jack is the greatest major champion, heck I'm fine with calling him the GOAT, but he wasn't the best player. I understand that barely makes sense, but I think you know what I mean.

 

I'm not even going to get started on basketball. Let's pretend I never brought it up.

 

Yeah Tiger was on such another level he has half the top 10s and half the top 5s in majors of jack not to mention never winning one from behind... yeah he had 2 once in a lifetime performances in majors to Jacks 1. Youre just too young and edgy for everyone in here calling anybody old farts for simply pointing out the fallacies in your posts. By sheer definition the best player ever should have the most majors.thats how it works in tennis and thats how it works in golf. Youre simply upset that Tiger is at 14 and Jack is at 18 and the only way you can close that gap is by implying he wasnt as good as tiger... come up with better talking points when youre ready to have a real conversation.

You are a grumpy fellow who is terrible at debating. “Better talking points” is different than simply disagreeing with someone’s arguments.

 

Would you like me to add Tiger’s 12 stroke victory at the Masters? There are a host of massive wins I could present; I simply provided two FROM THE SAME SEASON, you know, when he won 4 majors in a period of 10 months.

 

“Too young and edgy”. You think I’m tense, nervous and irritable? You realize you’re describing yourself and how you post, right?

[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.

 

You mean "you believe". you realize how arrogant your post sounds right? If you dont think Jack obliterated courses and fields stop posting all together. you cant ever compare team sports and individual sports

No, you stop posting. For I am PowderedToastMan the wise.

 

Jack dominated, but not like Tiger. 15 stroke victory at Pebble 2000! I say I know Tiger is better because I've watched them both play with my own eyes, and Tiger's game was better in nearly every way when firing on all cylinders. Then there's all the greats who've also stated that Tiger is better than Jack.

 

Don't get me wrong, Jack was incredible. Tiger though is another level. You will recall that he won 4 majors in a row, two of those by a combined 22 strokes? I don't care if you guys want to be grumpy old farts, but take some extra indigestion medicine when I say you are wrong if you think Jack was a better golfer than Tiger Woods. That's just absurd. Just stick with saying Jack is the greatest major champion, heck I'm fine with calling him the GOAT, but he wasn't the best player. I understand that barely makes sense, but I think you know what I mean.

 

I'm not even going to get started on basketball. Let's pretend I never brought it up.

 

Yeah Tiger was on such another level he has half the top 10s and half the top 5s in majors of jack not to mention never winning one from behind... yeah he had 2 once in a lifetime performances in majors to Jacks 1. Youre just too young and edgy for everyone in here calling anybody old farts for simply pointing out the fallacies in your posts. By sheer definition the best player ever should have the most majors.thats how it works in tennis and thats how it works in golf. Youre simply upset that Tiger is at 14 and Jack is at 18 and the only way you can close that gap is by implying he wasnt as good as tiger... come up with better talking points when youre ready to have a real conversation.

You are a grumpy fellow who is terrible at debating. “Better talking points” is different than simply disagreeing with someone’s arguments.

 

Would you like me to add Tiger’s 12 stroke victory at the Masters? There are a host of massive wins I could present; I simply provided two FROM THE SAME SEASON, you know, when he won 4 majors in a period of 10 months.

 

“Too young and edgy”. You think I’m tense, nervous and irritable? You realize you’re describing yourself and how you post, right?

 

Maybe margin of victory also says something about the rest of the field.

 

In the 77 Open Championship Jack beat the field by 10 strokes. The difference was at that time there were other players who would also step up theirs game in the final round of a major. Namely Watson who beat the rest of the field by 11.

[disco111]

in my ever so humble opinion and observations, the way to define "The GOAT" is to inquire, who did you look up to, when you started your golfing career? That's who the GOAT will be, but it will only impact a particular time in the golfing world. So with that referenced, Tiger's focus is / was Jack Nicklaus and until he totally surpasses all of Jack's numbers (the only one left as we all know is 18) Jack is the "GOAT".

 

On a side note I wonder how many of those 19 second place finishes Jack had in the majors, were only by one stroke. Just imagine the proverbial "what if"...........

[lowheel]

You are a grumpy fellow who is terrible at debating. "Better talking points" is different than simply disagreeing with someone's arguments.

 

Would you like me to add Tiger's 12 stroke victory at the Masters? There are a host of massive wins I could present; I simply provided two FROM THE SAME SEASON, you know, when he won 4 majors in a period of 10 months.

 

"Too young and edgy". You think I'm tense, nervous and irritable? You realize you're describing yourself and how you post, right?

 

Im terrible at debating says the guy with no arguments other than tiger won 4 majors in a row so case closed... that might be the greatest individual feat ever however were talking career not 2-3 year span. if you want a debate explain this to me how is it Jack won 30 times in his 20s with 7 majors and then immediately followed that up with 40 wins and 8 majors in his 30s? he actually got better better as the fields got better and courses got tougher. yet tiger who easily had the greatest career in his 20s ( 54 wins 12 majors ) followed it up with 25 wins and 2 majors in his 30s. You can blame imjuries and personal problems and swing changes but the #s are very telling.I dont think the Tour suddenly changed so dramatically that he suddenly wasnt a factor in majors anymore. Golf didnt suddenly catch up to him. His play was simply unsustainable after a while. it was the greatest 10 year span in his 20s yet he had johnny millers career in his 30s.Thats why careers are a marathon, not a sprint. Jack did it over 2 decades and only got better with legit threats who took majors and tourneys from him. I will never disrespect Tiger and defend his record all the time but any edge he had over jack afters his 20s disappeared in his 30s, its not even debatable. If youre the best ever you have to have the most majors, unfair or not thats the bar and deep down you know it but its sounds cool to use the term GOAT unchallenged so here we are

[lowheel]

 

Maybe margin of victory also says something about the rest of the field.

 

In the 77 Open Championship Jack beat the field by 10 strokes. The difference was at that time there were other players who would also step up theirs game in the final round of a major. Namely Watson who beat the rest of the field by 11.

 

Yup, its not like Mickelson didnt wax the field by 11 shots 2 years ago only to have Stenson wax them by 14. As a reminder Phil was 46 at the time and Stenson 40. Thank god for that strength of field though...

[FootWedge16]

How did Jack end up with so few total wins? There were like 5 good players when he was playing. Honestly, he should easily have 130+ victories.

 

How did tiger not win more majors? There were like 5 good players when he was playing. Honestly, he should easily have 25+ victories.

 

See how ludicrous that sounds?

 

Actually I agree. Tiger should have more majors.

 

Seriously though, with how long Jack was competitive and how few people actually played golf back then, I can’t believe he didn’t win more.

[Pent08]

Give it 20 years, eventually Tiger will win the goat title. Whether he wins 5 more majors or retires this December, eventually people will adequately appreciate his "best" and how long that it was sustained.

 

How long a player sustains his best is an argument for Jack, not Tiger. Jack was on top for 19 years, competitive for 27. Tiger was on top for 14 years, competitive for 15.

 

Tiger certainly won't have the GOAT title in 20 years because some young buck will come along, win 10 majors and 60 regular events, and be proclaimed the GOAT based on strength of field.

 

And since Tiger fans are on record being against objective measurements like number of major victories they won't have a leg to stand on in this future debate.

 

Tiger's best and Jack's best are not the same thing, so I guess those objective measurements you speak of were interpreted subjectively.

[Shilgy]

Give it 20 years, eventually Tiger will win the goat title. Whether he wins 5 more majors or retires this December, eventually people will adequately appreciate his "best" and how long that it was sustained.

 

How long a player's sustains his best is an argument for Jack, not Tiger. Jack was on top for 19 years, competitive for 27. Tiger was on top for 14 years, competitive for 15.

 

Tiger certainly won't have the GOAT title in 20 years because some young buck will come along, win 10 majors and 60 regular events, and be proclaimed the GOAT based on strength of field.

 

And since Tiger fans are on record being against objective measurements like number of major victories they won't have a leg to stand on in this future debate.

Sounds like the Brady Bunch. Majors majors majors instead of Marcia Marcia Marcia.

How about total wins? No shenanigans required. Since Tiger was only "competitive" some 12 years less than Jack you would surely think Jack would have more wins.

 

Of course you think that, you have to shift the goalposts somehow to close the gap. Shil, weve had this conversation hundreds of times and you always say the same thing. If jack had the amount of majors tiger had and vice versa youd be singing a different tune and you know it. "why are majors so important??" yeah right. give me a break.I guess you have snead ahead of Tiger right? ... come on man

Yes we have had this conversation a zillion times or so. And it's always the same thing. 18>14 but...9>11 or some such.

 

Is your top 5 of all time?

Jack

Tiger

Hagen

Hogan/Player

 

Must be the case. There is no other possible list. And Phil is tied for 14th best of all time. Koepka is already t29.

[PowderedToastMan]

You are a grumpy fellow who is terrible at debating. "Better talking points" is different than simply disagreeing with someone's arguments.

 

Would you like me to add Tiger's 12 stroke victory at the Masters? There are a host of massive wins I could present; I simply provided two FROM THE SAME SEASON, you know, when he won 4 majors in a period of 10 months.

 

"Too young and edgy". You think I'm tense, nervous and irritable? You realize you're describing yourself and how you post, right?

 

Im terrible at debating says the guy with no arguments other than tiger won 4 majors in a row so case closed... that might be the greatest individual feat ever however were talking career not 2-3 year span. if you want a debate explain this to me how is it Jack won 30 times in his 20s with 7 majors and then immediately followed that up with 40 wins and 8 majors in his 30s? he actually got better better as the fields got better and courses got tougher. yet tiger who easily had the greatest career in his 20s ( 54 wins 12 majors ) followed it up with 25 wins and 2 majors in his 30s. You can blame imjuries and personal problems and swing changes but the #s are very telling.I dont think the Tour suddenly changed so dramatically that he suddenly wasnt a factor in majors anymore. Golf didnt suddenly catch up to him. His play was simply unsustainable after a while. it was the greatest 10 year span in his 20s yet he had johnny millers career in his 30s.Thats why careers are a marathon, not a sprint. Jack did it over 2 decades and only got better with legit threats who took majors and tourneys from him. I will never disrespect Tiger and defend his record all the time but any edge he had over jack afters his 20s disappeared in his 30s, its not even debatable. If youre the best ever you have to have the most majors, unfair or not thats the bar and deep down you know it but its sounds cool to use the term GOAT unchallenged so here we are

There are many arguments for why Tiger is the greatest, but I honestly have zero desire to go in circles with you. I don’t even have an opinion on who the greatest is (check my many, many posts over the years supporting Jack). You seem to lump me in with the dummies who say Tiger is the GOAT without any evidence yet that’s clearly not me.

 

What I said was that nobody has played golf better than Tiger Woods. Not Jack, not Hogan, not anyone. You jumped down my throat when I said that, yet in the same breath start talking about how Miller, Watson, Trevino, etc. are better players than Els, Mickelson, and a host of other excellent players. Why are you, Lowheel, able to judge that the quality of players other than Nicklaus from ‘60 to ‘86 are better than those from “97-2008, yet I’m incapable of comparing one single player to another player? Think about that. There are a lot of giants in the sport who agree with my sentiment that Tiger was a better golfer, so it’s not as if I’m lacking credible support from the people who’ve actually played with both of them.

 

I have no desire to say anything else. You can go yell into a giant hole about how right you are if you’d like. Maybe lighten up a touch after you’re done.

[PowderedToastMan]

Give it 20 years, eventually Tiger will win the goat title. Whether he wins 5 more majors or retires this December, eventually people will adequately appreciate his "best" and how long that it was sustained.

 

How long a player sustains his best is an argument for Jack, not Tiger. Jack was on top for 19 years, competitive for 27. Tiger was on top for 14 years, competitive for 15.

 

Tiger certainly won't have the GOAT title in 20 years because some young buck will come along, win 10 majors and 60 regular events, and be proclaimed the GOAT based on strength of field.

 

And since Tiger fans are on record being against objective measurements like number of major victories they won't have a leg to stand on in this future debate.

 

Tiger's best and Jack's best are not the same thing, so I guess those objective measurements you speak of were interpreted subjectively.

Well put. I’ve been trying to make this argument for days. It’s really not that complicated.

[Forged4ever]

With all due respect, and I respect no one on this board more than the Toasted one, however to compare Jack and the sport that he Played, golf, an INDIVIDUAL sport and his position as the GOAT(as I’ve stated as nauseam, Jack is the Greatest Champion/GOAT & Tiger the Greatest Player), to Bill Russell, who Played a TEAM sport, and his not being in the discussion for GOAT, though in my eyes, Michael is my GOAT and Bill Russell is my #2 GOAT, is ?s to ?a, because I do not believe that you can compare a golfer, who relies on no one but himself to either win or lose to a basketball player, who must rely on at least 4 other guys to either emerge victorious or not.

 

And guys, the very best that this board has to offer membership wise are involved in this discussion, not some newbie troll, and believe me when I say that I am very passionate about my feelings that Jack is the GOAT, and there is less than zero doubt in my mind, and while I would state that on this board, over the phone or belly to belly, with you guys I would never ever take the heat or get personal because at the end of the day, it’s only my opinion, as right as I may be???.

 

 

I’m just joshin?

 

Sorta??

 

Plus, we’re all great guys and at the end of the day we should have each others’ backs??

 

 

Have a great weekend Gents?

RP

[lowheel]

You are a grumpy fellow who is terrible at debating. "Better talking points" is different than simply disagreeing with someone's arguments.

 

Would you like me to add Tiger's 12 stroke victory at the Masters? There are a host of massive wins I could present; I simply provided two FROM THE SAME SEASON, you know, when he won 4 majors in a period of 10 months.

 

"Too young and edgy". You think I'm tense, nervous and irritable? You realize you're describing yourself and how you post, right?

 

Im terrible at debating says the guy with no arguments other than tiger won 4 majors in a row so case closed... that might be the greatest individual feat ever however were talking career not 2-3 year span. if you want a debate explain this to me how is it Jack won 30 times in his 20s with 7 majors and then immediately followed that up with 40 wins and 8 majors in his 30s? he actually got better better as the fields got better and courses got tougher. yet tiger who easily had the greatest career in his 20s ( 54 wins 12 majors ) followed it up with 25 wins and 2 majors in his 30s. You can blame imjuries and personal problems and swing changes but the #s are very telling.I dont think the Tour suddenly changed so dramatically that he suddenly wasnt a factor in majors anymore. Golf didnt suddenly catch up to him. His play was simply unsustainable after a while. it was the greatest 10 year span in his 20s yet he had johnny millers career in his 30s.Thats why careers are a marathon, not a sprint. Jack did it over 2 decades and only got better with legit threats who took majors and tourneys from him. I will never disrespect Tiger and defend his record all the time but any edge he had over jack afters his 20s disappeared in his 30s, its not even debatable. If youre the best ever you have to have the most majors, unfair or not thats the bar and deep down you know it but its sounds cool to use the term GOAT unchallenged so here we are

There are many arguments for why Tiger is the greatest, but I honestly have zero desire to go in circles with you. I don't even have an opinion on who the greatest is (check my many, many posts over the years supporting Jack). You seem to lump me in with the dummies who say Tiger is the GOAT without any evidence yet that's clearly not me.

 

What I said was that nobody has played golf better than Tiger Woods. Not Jack, not Hogan, not anyone. You jumped down my throat when I said that, yet in the same breath start talking about how Miller, Watson, Trevino, etc. are better players than Els, Mickelson, and a host of other excellent players. Why are you, Lowheel, able to judge that the quality of players other than Nicklaus from '60 to '86 are better than those from "97-2008, yet I'm incapable of comparing one single player to another player? Think about that. There are a lot of giants in the sport who agree with my sentiment that Tiger was a better golfer, so it's not as if I'm lacking credible support from the people who've actually played with both of them.

 

I have no desire to say anything else. You can go yell into a giant hole about how right you are if you'd like. Maybe lighten up a touch after you're done.

 

Got it, were going on "feels". All good man. The whole passive aggressive thing is a waste of time by the way... have a good one

[PowderedToastMan]

You are a grumpy fellow who is terrible at debating. "Better talking points" is different than simply disagreeing with someone's arguments.

 

Would you like me to add Tiger's 12 stroke victory at the Masters? There are a host of massive wins I could present; I simply provided two FROM THE SAME SEASON, you know, when he won 4 majors in a period of 10 months.

 

"Too young and edgy". You think I'm tense, nervous and irritable? You realize you're describing yourself and how you post, right?

 

Im terrible at debating says the guy with no arguments other than tiger won 4 majors in a row so case closed... that might be the greatest individual feat ever however were talking career not 2-3 year span. if you want a debate explain this to me how is it Jack won 30 times in his 20s with 7 majors and then immediately followed that up with 40 wins and 8 majors in his 30s? he actually got better better as the fields got better and courses got tougher. yet tiger who easily had the greatest career in his 20s ( 54 wins 12 majors ) followed it up with 25 wins and 2 majors in his 30s. You can blame imjuries and personal problems and swing changes but the #s are very telling.I dont think the Tour suddenly changed so dramatically that he suddenly wasnt a factor in majors anymore. Golf didnt suddenly catch up to him. His play was simply unsustainable after a while. it was the greatest 10 year span in his 20s yet he had johnny millers career in his 30s.Thats why careers are a marathon, not a sprint. Jack did it over 2 decades and only got better with legit threats who took majors and tourneys from him. I will never disrespect Tiger and defend his record all the time but any edge he had over jack afters his 20s disappeared in his 30s, its not even debatable. If youre the best ever you have to have the most majors, unfair or not thats the bar and deep down you know it but its sounds cool to use the term GOAT unchallenged so here we are

There are many arguments for why Tiger is the greatest, but I honestly have zero desire to go in circles with you. I don't even have an opinion on who the greatest is (check my many, many posts over the years supporting Jack). You seem to lump me in with the dummies who say Tiger is the GOAT without any evidence yet that's clearly not me.

 

What I said was that nobody has played golf better than Tiger Woods. Not Jack, not Hogan, not anyone. You jumped down my throat when I said that, yet in the same breath start talking about how Miller, Watson, Trevino, etc. are better players than Els, Mickelson, and a host of other excellent players. Why are you, Lowheel, able to judge that the quality of players other than Nicklaus from '60 to '86 are better than those from "97-2008, yet I'm incapable of comparing one single player to another player? Think about that. There are a lot of giants in the sport who agree with my sentiment that Tiger was a better golfer, so it's not as if I'm lacking credible support from the people who've actually played with both of them.

 

I have no desire to say anything else. You can go yell into a giant hole about how right you are if you'd like. Maybe lighten up a touch after you're done.

 

Got it, were going on "feels". All good man. The whole passive aggressive thing is a waste of time by the way... have a good one

Why did you quote “feels”? I never said it or referred to it. I have no idea what you’re talking about; it’s like you’re responding to a different, unrelated thread.

 

Also, I wasn’t being passive. I thought I was actively letting you know that you are stubborn, bull headed, and are lump summing pro-Tiger arguments into one category without actually attempting to read my posts. I’ve not been passive in saying your posts in this thread are terrible, incoherent babbling.

 

...and apparently I’m posting like Kymar now. I better stop before I go full clown on everyone.

[Forged4ever]

You are a grumpy fellow who is terrible at debating. "Better talking points" is different than simply disagreeing with someone's arguments.

 

Would you like me to add Tiger's 12 stroke victory at the Masters? There are a host of massive wins I could present; I simply provided two FROM THE SAME SEASON, you know, when he won 4 majors in a period of 10 months.

 

"Too young and edgy". You think I'm tense, nervous and irritable? You realize you're describing yourself and how you post, right?

 

Im terrible at debating says the guy with no arguments other than tiger won 4 majors in a row so case closed... that might be the greatest individual feat ever however were talking career not 2-3 year span. if you want a debate explain this to me how is it Jack won 30 times in his 20s with 7 majors and then immediately followed that up with 40 wins and 8 majors in his 30s? he actually got better better as the fields got better and courses got tougher. yet tiger who easily had the greatest career in his 20s ( 54 wins 12 majors ) followed it up with 25 wins and 2 majors in his 30s. You can blame imjuries and personal problems and swing changes but the #s are very telling.I dont think the Tour suddenly changed so dramatically that he suddenly wasnt a factor in majors anymore. Golf didnt suddenly catch up to him. His play was simply unsustainable after a while. it was the greatest 10 year span in his 20s yet he had johnny millers career in his 30s.Thats why careers are a marathon, not a sprint. Jack did it over 2 decades and only got better with legit threats who took majors and tourneys from him. I will never disrespect Tiger and defend his record all the time but any edge he had over jack afters his 20s disappeared in his 30s, its not even debatable. If youre the best ever you have to have the most majors, unfair or not thats the bar and deep down you know it but its sounds cool to use the term GOAT unchallenged so here we are

There are many arguments for why Tiger is the greatest, but I honestly have zero desire to go in circles with you. I don't even have an opinion on who the greatest is (check my many, many posts over the years supporting Jack). You seem to lump me in with the dummies who say Tiger is the GOAT without any evidence yet that's clearly not me.

 

What I said was that nobody has played golf better than Tiger Woods. Not Jack, not Hogan, not anyone. You jumped down my throat when I said that, yet in the same breath start talking about how Miller, Watson, Trevino, etc. are better players than Els, Mickelson, and a host of other excellent players. Why are you, Lowheel, able to judge that the quality of players other than Nicklaus from '60 to '86 are better than those from "97-2008, yet I'm incapable of comparing one single player to another player? Think about that. There are a lot of giants in the sport who agree with my sentiment that Tiger was a better golfer, so it's not as if I'm lacking credible support from the people who've actually played with both of them.

 

I have no desire to say anything else. You can go yell into a giant hole about how right you are if you'd like. Maybe lighten up a touch after you're done.

 

Got it, were going on "feels". All good man. The whole passive aggressive thing is a waste of time by the way... have a good one

Why did you quote “feels”? I never said it or referred to it. I have no idea what you’re talking about; it’s like you’re responding to a different, unrelated thread.

 

Also, I wasn’t being passive. I thought I was actively letting you know that you are stubborn, bull headed, and are lump summing pro-Tiger arguments into one category without actually attempting to read my posts. I’ve not been passive in saying your posts in this thread are terrible, incoherent babbling.

 

...and apparently I’m posting like Kymar now. I better stop before I go full clown on everyone.

HaHaHa, friggin KYMs, lol

 

I hope that he’s well and if you’re out there Bro, drop in, even if it is just to be a d!ck??

 

Lovingly,

RP

Maddie

Ava?

[lowheel]

Give it 20 years, eventually Tiger will win the goat title. Whether he wins 5 more majors or retires this December, eventually people will adequately appreciate his "best" and how long that it was sustained.

 

How long a player's sustains his best is an argument for Jack, not Tiger. Jack was on top for 19 years, competitive for 27. Tiger was on top for 14 years, competitive for 15.

 

Tiger certainly won't have the GOAT title in 20 years because some young buck will come along, win 10 majors and 60 regular events, and be proclaimed the GOAT based on strength of field.

 

And since Tiger fans are on record being against objective measurements like number of major victories they won't have a leg to stand on in this future debate.

Sounds like the Brady Bunch. Majors majors majors instead of Marcia Marcia Marcia.

How about total wins? No shenanigans required. Since Tiger was only "competitive" some 12 years less than Jack you would surely think Jack would have more wins.

 

Of course you think that, you have to shift the goalposts somehow to close the gap. Shil, weve had this conversation hundreds of times and you always say the same thing. If jack had the amount of majors tiger had and vice versa youd be singing a different tune and you know it. "why are majors so important??" yeah right. give me a break.I guess you have snead ahead of Tiger right? ... come on man

Yes we have had this conversation a zillion times or so. And it's always the same thing. 18>14 but...9>11 or some such.

 

Is your top 5 of all time?

Jack

Tiger

Hagen

Hogan/Player

 

Must be the case. There is no other possible list. And Phil is tied for 14th best of all time. Koepka is already t29.

 

Very simple Shil. I dont ever want to disrespect pre world war 2 players/legends like Jones or Hagen as the modern majors werent even around let alone the fact that pro golfers were frowned upon.

My top 5 post WW2 is basically

 

Jack

Tiger

Hogan

Snead

Palmer

 

I dont include Nelson because as you and I agree despite his phenomenal record and record season he retired at 30 and did alot of his damage during the war.Despite Snead winning i believe his first major in 42 he then won 6 more past world war 2 well into the 50s so he gets my nod. Had Nelson followed Sneads route and played into his 30s and added several majors and likely another 20-25+ titles he would be right up there but there are no what ifs.

Im not only all about the majors Shil, i try to be fair in assessing. Hogans dominance and 2 extra majors outweighs sneads longevity and more tour wins. Player might have 9 but he was never a dominant player.He was a ferocious competitor who relished the big events but didnt win that often on tour. palmer won 42 times and 6 majors in the 60s on a tour that had a prime Nicklaus, Casper and so on. Player cant touch that kind of decade on any tour. I have watson ahead of him as well and I love Player. Watson is extremely underrated here

 

Whats your top 5? would love to know

 

Have a good weekend

[lowheel]

Why did you quote "feels"? I never said it or referred to it. I have no idea what you're talking about; it's like you're responding to a different, unrelated thread.

 

Also, I wasn't being passive. I thought I was actively letting you know that you are stubborn, bull headed, and are lump summing pro-Tiger arguments into one category without actually attempting to read my posts. I've not been passive in saying your posts in this thread are terrible, incoherent babbling.

 

...and apparently I'm posting like Kymar now. I better stop before I go full clown on everyone.

 

Whats difficult to understand? Was pretty clear in my post. you feel one way and thats fine. For someone who said 2 posts ago you didnt want to debate you sure seem eager to filibuster every single word im using.

the bolded applies to yourself FYI. Im cool with your opinion but apparently you want me to spell it out for some reason. Also, as a heads up no need to call others names in every post, thats why you get responses you dont like. i didnt lump you with anyone.I saw your post read it and disagreed with it. you made old people jokes about indegestion and grumpiness and what not. You can simply own up to that and not have the whole dumbfounded routine. Enjoy the rest of the ryder cup

Ill expect a non witty reply about me needing to lighten up and my incoherent posts in 3-2-1... ;)

[Event^Horizon]

No. The fields seem to be getting deeper and deeper.

 

So deep they just got pantsed by a 42 year old man a year removed from a spinal fusion. Yeah, they're world-beaters.

 

Are you inferring that TW will win every tournament he enters here on out? I mean your contempt for the rest of the Tour is obvious.

 

I do have contempt for the rest of the Tour now. No one likes getting duped. I feel like I was sold a bill of goods. Like I purchased a 2019 Ferrari Portofino and when I showed up at the dealership I was handed the keys to a 2012 Kia Optima. All we've heard from Golf Media and the Tour is "These guys are good." Maybe the slogan should have been "These guys are...meh."

 

I honestly don't care that they got taken out by Tiger. He's been trending in a great direction and a win seemed like the logical next step. But don't in the same breath tell me how deep and talented the fields are now and how hard it is to win when a guy who has basically been retired for five years just pulled it off. It's tantamount to pissing on my leg and telling me it's rain.

 

The only generational player in this bunch is Rory. And given his propensity for collapsing at critical times and being a mediocre putter his winning days may be behind him at the ripe old age of 30. What we've got on Tour at present are a group of players with talent a mile wide and desire an inch deep.

 

If the other Tour players are "meh", where to you put your golf game?

[Shilgy]

 

Very simple Shil. I dont ever want to disrespect pre world war 2 players/legends like Jones or Hagen as the modern majors werent even around let alone the fact that pro golfers were frowned upon.

My top 5 post WW2 is basically

 

Jack

Tiger

Hogan

Snead

Palmer

 

I dont include Nelson because as you and I agree despite his phenomenal record and record season he retired at 30 and did alot of his damage during the war.Despite Snead winning i believe his first major in 42 he then won 6 more past world war 2 well into the 50s so he gets my nod. Had Nelson followed Sneads route and played into his 30s and added several majors and likely another 20-25+ titles he would be right up there but there are no what ifs.

Im not only all about the majors Shil, i try to be fair in assessing. Hogans dominance and 2 extra majors outweighs sneads longevity and more tour wins. Player might have 9 but he was never a dominant player.He was a ferocious competitor who relished the big events but didnt win that often on tour. palmer won 42 times and 6 majors in the 60s on a tour that had a prime Nicklaus, Casper and so on. Player cant touch that kind of decade on any tour. I have watson ahead of him as well and I love Player. Watson is extremely underrated here

 

Whats your top 5? would love to know

 

Have a good weekend

If all that matters is Jack's 18>14, all as in nothing else, how is Hagen not in your top 5? He's gotta be #3.

 

Since you asked-with no thought

Tiger

Jack

A while bunch behind that. Some played the best, some lacked something-no order so don't read anything into this

Arnie, Phil, Watson, Norman, Hogan, Vijay, DJ, Seve. Certainly there are others so don't read too much into this.

My Mount Rushmore of golf is incomplete. Just the two so far.

 

PS so you do cut off older eras but just do so earlier than I do.

[A.Princey]

What's Tiger's winning % per major played?? What's Jack's?? This works for OWGR, why not shift it to this discussion with a minimum divisor of say 20 majors.....