The GOAT (merged)

[RainShadow]

OP is under 40.....

[playa]

> @RainShadow said:

> OP is under 40.....

 

Try over 50. Old enough to have seen enough to form an opinion. Tiger is the greatest golfer who ever played the game, and as great a champion in all of sports than has ever been. He is that rare competitive animal that performs at higher levels as the pressure increases. You could see it yesterday. Molinari and Koepka made a mental error on 12 by going flag hunting on 12, especially Molinari sitting on a lead. Tiger played safe and took double off the table. Tiger went for the safe bogey on 18. His brain and body function better under the highest pressure than the rest of the field. He has an advantage every time he tees it up, but back nine Sunday at the Masters that advantage is huge. I'm not a fan of Tiger per se, but I'm not ashamed to say I'm a fan of his golf game.

[reqq]

Tiger will win more majors. He was really close even last year. This masters setting this year with more damp condition was better for Molinari(and some others) and less good for Tiger. I feel one of Tigers strenght are super fast and hard greens at Augusta, they were easier this year right? So under "normal" conditions his chances will increase for another one.

[jerebear21]

As far as global recognition it’s Ali Jordan and tiger. And it’s not really close.

 

Tiger may or may not win more majors. Who cares. It’s still a joy to watch. Enjoy it because the end will be much closer than it was 10 years ago.

[Vindog]

> @reqq said:

> Tiger will win more majors. He was really close even last year. This masters setting this year with more damp condition was better for Molinari(and some others) and less good for Tiger. I feel one of Tigers strenght are super fast and hard greens at Augusta, they were easier this year right? So under "normal" conditions his chances will increase for another one.

I don't know. I felt from the get go that weather would be an equalizer and help Tiger in the long run. Although to be fair, I mentioned it more as a factor at The Open.

 

[57Seve]

For me, the GOAT is still a debate. Jack was in his prime when I was knee high. He killed it. The 18 majors and 19 runners up, plus that ridiculous top 10 in majors count. He's earned his place in golf history. However, Tiger (my all-time favorite golfer) did much more for golf, sport, and more. He's transcendent. You can't say that about Jack. And Tiger just blew the sports world's mind (again) with #15. Add in 81 tour victories, and the debate is heated. If Tiger matches Jack's 18, and breaks Snead's 82 tour wins, then for me, Tiger's the GOAT, end of debate. Saying all that, Tiger & Jack are both golf gods.

[naval2006]

I hope at least Tiger gets to 18 majors to solve the mistery. I personally believe Tiger has more skill than Jack Nicklaus had throughout his career. They are both the ultimate golf machine mentally speaking, perhaps with a little edge towards Nicklaus. And the putting is killing in both cases. Total Majors favors Jack and in the end it's the yardstick through time, but those who have seen both players in action will probably agree that it's really hard to tell who is better.

[Shankapod]

I subscribe to Tiger has played the greatest golf in the history of the game, but Jack has had the greatest career. The majors mean something.....

I think the greatest golf every played does indicate who the greatest golfer is, though.

[Hawkeye77]

> @naval2006 said:

> I hope at least Tiger gets to 18 majors to solve the mistery. I personally believe Tiger has more skill than Jack Nicklaus had throughout his career. They are both the ultimate golf machine mentally speaking, perhaps with a little edge towards Nicklaus. And the putting is killing in both cases. Total Majors favors Jack and in the end it's the yardstick through time, but those who have seen both players in action will probably agree that it's really hard to tell who is better.

But why does anything need to be solved either way?

 

Nicklaus and Woods are both comfortable with their places in the game.

 

[RobotDoctor]

> @naval2006 said:

> I hope at least Tiger gets to 18 majors to solve the mistery. I personally believe Tiger has more skill than Jack Nicklaus had throughout his career. They are both the ultimate golf machine mentally speaking, perhaps with a little edge towards Nicklaus. And the putting is killing in both cases. Total Majors favors Jack and in the end it's the yardstick through time, but those who have seen both players in action will probably agree that it's really hard to tell who is better.

 

Tiger is definitely a better wedge player than Nicklaus ever was. After 1980 and working with Phil Rogers, Nicklaus' wedge play got better but still not Tiger Woods level. Nicklaus hit long irons better than Tiger Woods. Nicklaus hit high towering 1 irons when most players believed only God could hit a 1 iron. Tiger Woods rarely has to hit long irons so he doesn't have to be better. Both were/are terrific putters and made putts when needed. Nicklaus was a better driver of the ball. Both were prodigiously long, Nicklaus winning the "Long Drive" contest at the 1963 PGA Championship with a drive of 341. This feat would be very, very respectable today and along side with Brooks Koepka, Dustin Johnson, Bubba Watson, and any long hitter today. Difference is Nicklaus used a steel shafted MacGregor SS1 persimmon driver and a balata ball.

 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/08/jack-nicklaus-long-drive-pga-championship-louis-oosthuizen-bubba-watson

 

At the end of the day both players were outstanding and definitely worthy of the title GOAT. The differentiator is the total major championship win total. Now that Tiger Woods is healthy again, has returned to his winning ways (Tour Championship and The Masters - #15), the all time major record is back in play. Will Tiger Woods reach 18? Surpass 18? I certainly wouldn't bet against him as of now. If and when Tiger reaches 18 I will gladly refer to him as GOAT. Until that day arrives Nicklaus is the GOAT.

[redfirebird08]

> @RobotDoctor said:

> > @naval2006 said:

> > I hope at least Tiger gets to 18 majors to solve the mistery. I personally believe Tiger has more skill than Jack Nicklaus had throughout his career. They are both the ultimate golf machine mentally speaking, perhaps with a little edge towards Nicklaus. And the putting is killing in both cases. Total Majors favors Jack and in the end it's the yardstick through time, but those who have seen both players in action will probably agree that it's really hard to tell who is better.

>

> Tiger is definitely a better wedge player than Nicklaus ever was. After 1980 and working with Phil Rogers, Nicklaus' wedge play got better but still not Tiger Woods level. Nicklaus hit long irons better than Tiger Woods. Nicklaus hit high towering 1 irons when most players believed only God could hit a 1 iron. Tiger Woods rarely has to hit long irons so he doesn't have to be better. Both were/are terrific putters and made putts when needed. Nicklaus was a better driver of the ball. Both were prodigiously long, Nicklaus winning the "Long Drive" contest at the 1963 PGA Championship with a drive of 341. This feat would be very, very respectable today and along side with Brooks Koepka, Dustin Johnson, Bubba Watson, and any long hitter today. Difference is Nicklaus used a steel shafted MacGregor SS1 persimmon driver and a balata ball.

>

> https://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/08/jack-nicklaus-long-drive-pga-championship-louis-oosthuizen-bubba-watson

>

> At the end of the day both players were outstanding and definitely worthy of the title GOAT. The differentiator is the total major championship win total. Now that Tiger Woods is healthy again, has returned to his winning ways (Tour Championship and The Masters - #15), the all time major record is back in play. Will Tiger Woods reach 18? Surpass 18? I certainly wouldn't bet against him as of now. If and when Tiger reaches 18 I will gladly refer to him as GOAT. Until that day arrives Nicklaus is the GOAT.

 

 

Jack might have been slightly better with long irons, but Tiger was pretty dang incredible with them in his own right. Maybe you have forgotten some of the shots he hit during his early years. Like Jack he had a very high, soft ball flight and very flush shots with the long irons compared to everyone else in golf around the mid to late 90's. It was a huge advantage for him over the field before hybrid clubs and the fancy new balls helped out all the other guys around 2001-2003.

[RobotDoctor]

> @redfirebird08 said:

> > @RobotDoctor said:

> > > @naval2006 said:

> > > I hope at least Tiger gets to 18 majors to solve the mistery. I personally believe Tiger has more skill than Jack Nicklaus had throughout his career. They are both the ultimate golf machine mentally speaking, perhaps with a little edge towards Nicklaus. And the putting is killing in both cases. Total Majors favors Jack and in the end it's the yardstick through time, but those who have seen both players in action will probably agree that it's really hard to tell who is better.

> >

> > Tiger is definitely a better wedge player than Nicklaus ever was. After 1980 and working with Phil Rogers, Nicklaus' wedge play got better but still not Tiger Woods level. Nicklaus hit long irons better than Tiger Woods. Nicklaus hit high towering 1 irons when most players believed only God could hit a 1 iron. Tiger Woods rarely has to hit long irons so he doesn't have to be better. Both were/are terrific putters and made putts when needed. Nicklaus was a better driver of the ball. Both were prodigiously long, Nicklaus winning the "Long Drive" contest at the 1963 PGA Championship with a drive of 341. This feat would be very, very respectable today and along side with Brooks Koepka, Dustin Johnson, Bubba Watson, and any long hitter today. Difference is Nicklaus used a steel shafted MacGregor SS1 persimmon driver and a balata ball.

> >

> > https://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/08/jack-nicklaus-long-drive-pga-championship-louis-oosthuizen-bubba-watson

> >

> > At the end of the day both players were outstanding and definitely worthy of the title GOAT. The differentiator is the total major championship win total. Now that Tiger Woods is healthy again, has returned to his winning ways (Tour Championship and The Masters - #15), the all time major record is back in play. Will Tiger Woods reach 18? Surpass 18? I certainly wouldn't bet against him as of now. If and when Tiger reaches 18 I will gladly refer to him as GOAT. Until that day arrives Nicklaus is the GOAT.

>

>

> Jack might have been slightly better with long irons, but Tiger was pretty dang incredible with them in his own right. Maybe you have forgotten some of the shots he hit during his early years. Like Jack he had a very high, soft ball flight and very flush shots with the long irons compared to everyone else in golf around the mid to late 90's. It was a huge advantage for him over the field before hybrid clubs and the fancy new balls helped out all the other guys around 2001-2003.

 

Tiger is pretty good. :)

[ex0dus]

I am not a big fan of comparing guys from different eras. However there is one thing that bugs me. When Nicklaus won the Masters in '86 literally every story about it mentioned it was his 20th major. Nobody ever talked about professional majors, the US Amateur was automatically included in the major count.

 

Then Tiger comes along and wins 3 straight US Amateurs, then turns pro and shows that he is a threat to Jacks record. Then all of a sudden the press starts talking about professional majors, as if Tiger's 3 peat at the US Am doesn't count.

 

I saw a quote from Nicklaus not long ago lamenting that 2 of his majors "disappeared one day". It almost seems like the media decided to start talking about professional majors to make Tiger one step farther away from Jack.

[Hawkeye77]

> @ex0dus said:

> I am not a big fan of comparing guys from different eras. However there is one thing that bugs me. When Nicklaus won the Masters in '86 literally every story about it mentioned it was his 20th major. Nobody ever talked about professional majors, the US Amateur was automatically included in the major count.

>

> Then Tiger comes along and wins 3 straight US Amateurs, then turns pro and shows that he is a threat to Jacks record. Then all of a sudden the press starts talking about professional majors, as if Tiger's 3 peat at the US Am doesn't count.

>

> I saw a quote from Nicklaus not long ago lamenting that 2 of his majors "disappeared one day". It almost seems like the media decided to start talking about professional majors to make Tiger one step farther away from Jack.

 

The conversation changed but come on, it seems it was more about the U.S. Am losing its stature for some obvious reasons than some anti-Tiger conspiracy, lol.

[Hawkeye77]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @ex0dus said:

> > I am not a big fan of comparing guys from different eras. However there is one thing that bugs me. When Nicklaus won the Masters in '86 literally every story about it mentioned it was his 20th major. Nobody ever talked about professional majors, the US Amateur was automatically included in the major count.

> >

> > Then Tiger comes along and wins 3 straight US Amateurs, then turns pro and shows that he is a threat to Jacks record. Then all of a sudden the press starts talking about professional majors, as if Tiger's 3 peat at the US Am doesn't count.

> >

> > I saw a quote from Nicklaus not long ago lamenting that 2 of his majors "disappeared one day". It almost seems like the media decided to start talking about professional majors to make Tiger one step farther away from Jack.

>

> The conversation changed but come on, it seems it was more about the U.S. Am losing its stature for some obvious reasons than some anti-Tiger conspiracy, lol.

Listen to folks talk when Tiger turned pro, nobody was seriously worrying about any threat to Jack, if anything Tiger was underestimated so no, that didn't happen and makes no sense.

[ex0dus]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @ex0dus said:

> > I am not a big fan of comparing guys from different eras. However there is one thing that bugs me. When Nicklaus won the Masters in '86 literally every story about it mentioned it was his 20th major. Nobody ever talked about professional majors, the US Amateur was automatically included in the major count.

> >

> > Then Tiger comes along and wins 3 straight US Amateurs, then turns pro and shows that he is a threat to Jacks record. Then all of a sudden the press starts talking about professional majors, as if Tiger's 3 peat at the US Am doesn't count.

> >

> > I saw a quote from Nicklaus not long ago lamenting that 2 of his majors "disappeared one day". It almost seems like the media decided to start talking about professional majors to make Tiger one step farther away from Jack.

>

> The conversation changed but come on, it seems it was more about the U.S. Am losing its stature for some obvious reasons than some anti-Tiger conspiracy, lol.

 

Why exactly did it suddenly "lose stature" after Tiger won it 3 straight times? Why didn't it "lose stature" over the previous 30 years?

 

Tiger won the slam a few years after he turned pro. He was absolutely seen as a legit threat to Jack.

[Mikey5e]

Will Tiger win the golf slam?

[redfirebird08]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > @ex0dus said:

> > > I am not a big fan of comparing guys from different eras. However there is one thing that bugs me. When Nicklaus won the Masters in '86 literally every story about it mentioned it was his 20th major. Nobody ever talked about professional majors, the US Amateur was automatically included in the major count.

> > >

> > > Then Tiger comes along and wins 3 straight US Amateurs, then turns pro and shows that he is a threat to Jacks record. Then all of a sudden the press starts talking about professional majors, as if Tiger's 3 peat at the US Am doesn't count.

> > >

> > > I saw a quote from Nicklaus not long ago lamenting that 2 of his majors "disappeared one day". It almost seems like the media decided to start talking about professional majors to make Tiger one step farther away from Jack.

> >

> > The conversation changed but come on, it seems it was more about the U.S. Am losing its stature for some obvious reasons than some anti-Tiger conspiracy, lol.

> Listen to folks talk when Tiger turned pro, nobody was seriously worrying about any threat to Jack, if anything Tiger was underestimated so no, that didn't happen and makes no sense.

 

I agree, it's just a funny coincidence with the timing of it. People thought a possible career of 10 majors would be amazing (which IT IS AMAZING). Even Tiger's dad did not believe he would get to 18 and his prediction was very optimistic for his son: 14 majors. That prediction from his dad looks like a curse over the last decade.

[cdnglf]

> @ex0dus said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > @ex0dus said:

> > > I am not a big fan of comparing guys from different eras. However there is one thing that bugs me. When Nicklaus won the Masters in '86 literally every story about it mentioned it was his 20th major. Nobody ever talked about professional majors, the US Amateur was automatically included in the major count.

> > >

> > > Then Tiger comes along and wins 3 straight US Amateurs, then turns pro and shows that he is a threat to Jacks record. Then all of a sudden the press starts talking about professional majors, as if Tiger's 3 peat at the US Am doesn't count.

> > >

> > > I saw a quote from Nicklaus not long ago lamenting that 2 of his majors "disappeared one day". It almost seems like the media decided to start talking about professional majors to make Tiger one step farther away from Jack.

> >

> > The conversation changed but come on, it seems it was more about the U.S. Am losing its stature for some obvious reasons than some anti-Tiger conspiracy, lol.

>

> Why exactly did it suddenly "lose stature" after Tiger won it 3 straight times? Why didn't it "lose stature" over the previous 30 years?

>

> Tiger won the slam a few years after he turned pro. He was absolutely seen as a legit threat to Jack.

 

It shouldn't have been a "major" when Jack won it, but Bobby Jones was still alive so maybe nobody was in a hurry to point that out. For that matter, the US Am wasn't a major in the modern sense of the word even when Jones won it - no Hagen, Sarazen, Barnes, Armour, etc.

 

Today, the US Am is completely different from the actual majors. I don't get why people want to count it as one.

[Hawkeye77]

Here's an article from 1994. Tiger was 18, nobody losing sleep over Jack's place in history. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-02-10-sp-21196-story.html

 

He had 18 majors, then including the am was more of a footnote, the narrative had already changed.

 

When Jack started winning Senior "majors" some just started breaking down his different kinds by category - professional, am, senior. Maybe it started with that, who knows.

 

Not sure what it matters overall.

 

Tiger won more ams!

 

Of course, Jack would have won more had he not made the decision to turn pro, wait, Tiger would have won more, too! And on and on we go ...............

[ex0dus]

> @cdnglf said:

 

> Today, the US Am is completely different from the actual majors. I don't get why people want to count it as one.

 

Maybe because it was counted as one during Jack's entire career.

 

"Nicklaus recalls Browning making a commemorate 20-gauge shotgun after he won the '86 Masters for the last of his majors, playing off 20-gauge and 20 majors. His best guess is that the U.S. Amateur was no longer considered a major, when Woods won it a record three straight times from 1994 to 1996.

''Because they didn't really count Tiger's as majors,'' Nicklaus said. ''Rather than counting Tiger's as majors, they didn't do that, and they sort of took mine away.''

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/notes-why-jack-nicklaus-major-championship-total-18-and-not-20

 

It wasn't a secret that there was some anti-Tiger bias in the press, and general public, when he turned pro. Some resented the $100 million endorsement deal he signed the day he turned pro and all the attention he was getting. Some didn't want to see a new star who wasn't white. Tiger was getting death threats back then.

 

I remember going to a Nike Tour event (now Web.com) back then and seeing this bias myself. I went inside to buy a tshirt and there was a little old lady in front of me in line talking to the kid behind the counter. Tiger had won his first tournament a week or two prior. A PGA event was on the TV and she asked who was leading. The kid said Tiger and she said "I wish he had stayed an amateur". I was like what is that supposed to mean? Then i realized she didn't want a star who wasn't white.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ex0dus]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> Here's an article from 1994. Tiger was 18, nobody losing sleep over Jack's place in history. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-02-10-sp-21196-story.html

>

> He had 18 majors, then including the am was more of a footnote, the narrative had already changed.

>

> When Jack started winning Senior "majors" some just started breaking down his different kinds by category - professional, am, senior. Maybe it started with that, who knows.

>

> Not sure what it matters overall.

>

> Tiger won more ams!

>

> Of course, Jack would have won more had he not made the decision to turn pro, wait, Tiger would have won more, too! And on and on we go ...............

 

The article was talking about professional events:

 

"

"Oh, I will always play in some senior major events because I think the tour needs my support," he said Wednesday, "but when I talk about playing some more, I'm talking about the regular tour. That's the only one that really matters to me."

 

**And when he's talking about the regular tour, he is really talking about the major championships,** because that is what Jack Nicklaus is all about.

 

Nicklaus has won 18 of them, 20 when two U.S. Amateurs are included, but none since the Masters in 1986."

 

If the US Amateur wasn't considered a major, then why would it be "included"?

 

[redfirebird08]

> @cdnglf said:

>

> It shouldn't have been a "major" when Jack won it, but Bobby Jones was still alive so maybe nobody was in a hurry to point that out. For that matter, the US Am wasn't a major in the modern sense of the word even when Jones won it - no Hagen, Sarazen, Barnes, Armour, etc.

>

> Today, the US Am is completely different from the actual majors. I don't get why people want to count it as one.

 

Yep. I think it's pretty unfair to Walter Hagen that a lot of people count Jones' Amateur victories as majors when pretty much nobody counts the 5 Western Opens for Hagen, even though Hagen likely faced tougher competition in those Western Open victories. Bobby (and history) screwed him with The Masters as well since it started way after Hagen's prime, so he missed a ton of prime years to win one of the four modern majors.

[ex0dus]

Jack still thinks he has 20:

 

 

 

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

> @ex0dus said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > Here's an article from 1994. Tiger was 18, nobody losing sleep over Jack's place in history. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-02-10-sp-21196-story.html

> >

> > He had 18 majors, then including the am was more of a footnote, the narrative had already changed.

> >

> > When Jack started winning Senior "majors" some just started breaking down his different kinds by category - professional, am, senior. Maybe it started with that, who knows.

> >

> > Not sure what it matters overall.

> >

> > Tiger won more ams!

> >

> > Of course, Jack would have won more had he not made the decision to turn pro, wait, Tiger would have won more, too! And on and on we go ...............

>

> The article was talking about professional events:

>

> "

> "Oh, I will always play in some senior major events because I think the tour needs my support," he said Wednesday, "but when I talk about playing some more, I'm talking about the regular tour. That's the only one that really matters to me."

>

> **And when he's talking about the regular tour, he is really talking about the major championships,** because that is what Jack Nicklaus is all about.

>

> Nicklaus has won 18 of them, 20 when two U.S. Amateurs are included, but none since the Masters in 1986."

>

> If the US Amateur wasn't considered a major, then why would it be "included"?

>

Good job of missing the point there.

 

The distinction between professional majors and amateur - in the past it was simply "x" majors. And the discussion of senior "majors".

 

Just simply showing the categories were becoming part of the narrative - oh, I already said that.

[Hawkeye77]

> @ex0dus said:

> Jack still thinks he has 20:

>

>

>

>

 

 

Well, that's because he does.

[Hawkeye77]

> @redfirebird08 said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> >

> > It shouldn't have been a "major" when Jack won it, but Bobby Jones was still alive so maybe nobody was in a hurry to point that out. For that matter, the US Am wasn't a major in the modern sense of the word even when Jones won it - no Hagen, Sarazen, Barnes, Armour, etc.

> >

> > Today, the US Am is completely different from the actual majors. I don't get why people want to count it as one.

>

> Yep. I think it's pretty unfair to Walter Hagen that a lot of people count Jones' Amateur victories as majors when pretty much nobody counts the 5 Western Opens for Hagen, even though Hagen likely faced tougher competition in those Western Open victories. Bobby (and history) screwed him with The Masters as well since it started way after Hagen's prime, so he missed a ton of prime years to win one of the four modern majors.

 

Well, darn it, Old Tom Morris doesn't get to count The Masters either!

 

Jones is just kind of in a league all his own.

 

And yes, it's definitions that aren't perfect, but we all know who was good and I don't think Hagen gets slighted by golf historians.

[legitimategolf]

Jack also successfully turned the conversation away from the all-time PGA TOUR wins record and towards the all-time major wins record. Look, Jack is an all-time great sports person, but PGA TOUR wins is a big gap in his resume. If he was so awesome then why didn't he just cherry pick a few b-flight tournaments and finish off Snead's record and leave no questions whatsoever about who's the greatest.

[Carl Spackler3]

> @playa said:

> > @kwcsports said:

> > Anyone saying he dismantled the field watched a different back nine. Molinari made 2 doubles, Tiger won by 1 shot. Great win, good for him, but he never dismantled the field.

>

> I'm saying the perceived pressure and the way Tiger managed his game is the reason the other guys made doubles to hand it to him. They couldn't handle the intimidation factor that Tiger brings to the table.

> Tiger also won by one shot because that's all he needed to win by. He played very conservatively down the stretch once he got the buffer. He took no chances and played ultra safe. I think he had a couple of shots in reserve if he needed them, but like the total professional he is he took no risks and did what he had to do.

>

> both of your post were exactly correct. That is the Tiger effect, Molinari blinked and Tiger smacked him

 

[redfirebird08]

> @legitimategolf said:

> Jack also successfully turned the conversation away from the all-time PGA TOUR wins record and towards the all-time major wins record. Look, Jack is an all-time great sports person, but PGA TOUR wins is a big gap in his resume. If he was so awesome then why didn't he just cherry pick a few b-flight tournaments and finish off Snead's record and leave no questions whatsoever about who's the greatest.

 

I would say that's because Jack was pretty committed to spending time with his family. He has a lot of kids and I'm sure wanted to attend all their junior sports events and so forth. Spend time at home with them, whatever the case might be.

 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens if Tiger ties and/or passes Snead. Lot of people downplay it compared to the majors, but Snead has held that record for almost 70 years. That's a long time. It's not a meaningless achievement.