Poll - The Masters: 1986 or 2019

[kiclub690]

> @RichieHunt said:

> Honestly, this Masters doesn't make my top-10. So yeah, 1986...by a long shot.

>

> My top-10 Masters are (in chronological order):

>

> 1960

> 1965

> 1975

> 1978

> 1986

> 1987

> 1997

> 1998

> 2004

> 2011

>

> But, just to give a comparison of '86 vs. '19.

>

> One had a 43-year old who was trailing by 2-shots going into Sunday and he shot 70 and won outright in a round where the average score was 71.46

>

> The other was a 46-year old who was trailing by 4-strokes going into Sunday and he played the last 10-holes at 7-under par (and came so close to playing them 10-under par), shot 65 and won outright.

>

>

>

> RH

 

 

 

Come on man!!!!! If you’re using trailing as the deciding factor here, AP was leading from Day #1 of 1960 masters. Sure he had to make birdie on the last to win but that’s because he backed up a first round 67 with a collective 3 day total of one under.

 

Not to mention the fact that no one paid attention to that tournament other than the few folks there and some guys reading the sports page. TW’s win got a shout out from not only the former POTUS but the current. POTUS!!!

 

That’s a unbelievable accomplishment in and of it self to get and dem and a repub to cross party lines and agree on something. Changing my view, hands down TW 2019.

[lowheel]

> @RobotDoctor said:

> To me the '86 Masters is the best ever being how Nicklaus stormed back and shot 30 on the back 9 taking out Norman, Ballesteros and Kite. Nicklaus wasn't playing well and was labeled as too old. With Woods, he has overcome health issues, personal issues and self doubt. Maybe my sentiment with '86 is my admiration for Nicklaus. Maybe the 2019 Masters is the most incredible. I need time to digest what just happened in the grand scheme of things.

 

Very well put. In terms of excitement even the biggest tiger fan knows 86 was more exciting as Jack roared in with a back 9 30. This one is more historical in significance as tiger was 11 years past his last major and over time will be recognized as such.Jack was 6 years removed from his last 2 and really threatened majors in 81-82-83. Im really happy that tiger finally has his Jack in 86 Moment.The parallels are great.We know Jack never won another one after 86 and was 46 versus Tiger being 43 but as we've seen in this game we dont know what tomorrow will bring.If this is it for tiger in 10 years it will gain notoriety

[lowheel]

> @Redjeep83 said:

> 2019, Jack was playing well when he won 86 masters. Was in top 30 in world ranking

 

I dont know what you remember but dan jenkins wrote an article about him in january 86 around the west coast swing saying he was done. You should rethink your post

 

Here are all his 86' finishes leading up to the masters:

T60

CUT

T39

CUT

T47

W/D

CUT ( PLAYERS CHAMPIONSHIP)

WON ( MASTERS)

 

[RichieHunt]

> @kiclub690 said:

> > @RichieHunt said:

> > Honestly, this Masters doesn't make my top-10. So yeah, 1986...by a long shot.

> >

> > My top-10 Masters are (in chronological order):

> >

> > 1960

> > 1965

> > 1975

> > 1978

> > 1986

> > 1987

> > 1997

> > 1998

> > 2004

> > 2011

> >

> > But, just to give a comparison of '86 vs. '19.

> >

> > One had a 43-year old who was trailing by 2-shots going into Sunday and he shot 70 and won outright in a round where the average score was 71.46

> >

> > The other was a 46-year old who was trailing by 4-strokes going into Sunday and he played the last 10-holes at 7-under par (and came so close to playing them 10-under par), shot 65 and won outright.

> >

> >

> >

> > RH

>

>

>

> Come on man!!!!! If you’re using trailing as the deciding factor here, AP was leading from Day #1 of 1960 masters. Sure he had to make birdie on the last to win but that’s because he backed up a first round 67 with a collective 3 day total of one under.

>

> Not to mention the fact that no one paid attention to that tournament other than the few folks there and some guys reading the sports page. TW’s win got a shout out from not only the former POTUS but the current. POTUS!!!

>

> That’s a unbelievable accomplishment in and of it self to get and dem and a repub to cross party lines and agree on something. Changing my view, hands down TW 2019.

 

I'm not using trailing as the deciding factor as seen by the others in my top-10. 1960 was better because it was more exciting and it essentially was The Masters that made The Masters the Masters :)

 

After the 1960 event, The Masters became a must-see sporting event and really endeared the world to Arnold Palmer. Had that not happened, a Tiger Woods may have never played golf to begin with.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[joeshmo]

86 was better than this year.

TW 70 on Sunday was like Andy North's Open wins. Just don't screw up

and let others throw-up.

True Jack won a lot that way and TW has learned also.

[MK7Golf21]

> @lowheel said:

> > @Redjeep83 said:

> > 2019, Jack was playing well when he won 86 masters. Was in top 30 in world ranking

>

> I dont know what you remember but dan jenkins wrote an article about him in january 86 around the west coast swing saying he was done. You should rethink your post

>

> Here are all his 86' finishes leading up to the masters:

> T60

> CUT

> T39

> CUT

> T47

> W/D

> CUT ( PLAYERS CHAMPIONSHIP)

> WON ( MASTERS)

>

He may of been in a small slump but he was still top 30 player in the world at the time. Happens alot on pga tour, guys playing pretty terrible and then get hot one weekend and go onto a win.

[kwcsports]

> @titzercm said:

> Jack in '86 and it's not even close. I think people need to go back and watch that final round broadcast on youtube and see how Jack took it! A few observations that sound out about 86 vs 19:

> * I can't prove it, but the greens were faster in 86 than in 19

> * Jack was really a part-time player at the time. Played only a few events outside the majors. And he was 3 years older at 46.

> * Nicklaus hit a perfect drive on 13 and had 210.....Tiger had 168 (3 iron vs 8 iron)....so I think the course was playing harder even though the total yardage of AN was shorter then

> * Norman and Seve were the 2 best players in the world at that time....probably say the leader board was maybe a hair better in '86 in total. (With Rose and McIlroy out of it it's hard to say 19 was better)

> * I will always feel that Molinari lost this Masters vs Tiger won it (If Molinari plays to the center of the green on 12 I don't think Tiger wins)

> * While Norman made 5 on 18, and Seve had a few mistakes, there mistakes NEVER took them out of the tournament like Molinari

> * Nicklaus TOOK that tournament....birdies at 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 (eagle), 16, 17. (Woods had 3 birdies in that same stretch)

>

> GO WATCH IT......86 the world shook!

>

> With that being said, I was so happy for Tiger! It was awesome! What a great thread!

 

Thanks for this, you are 100% correct IMHO ^^^^^^^

[Frostfield]

Another thing no one ever seems to bring up is how easily any pro can go out on a Sunday waaay back and shoot a low round. Yes, mathematically it’s harder to comeback and win, yet mentally and strategically it’s easier cause you start off not nervous and hyper-aggressive. I still say it’s a tie.

[TServos]

I didnt see the ‘86, I was golfing.

[lowheel]

> @Redjeep83 said:

> > @lowheel said:

> > > @Redjeep83 said:

> > > 2019, Jack was playing well when he won 86 masters. Was in top 30 in world ranking

> >

> > I dont know what you remember but dan jenkins wrote an article about him in january 86 around the west coast swing saying he was done. You should rethink your post

> >

> > Here are all his 86' finishes leading up to the masters:

> > T60

> > CUT

> > T39

> > CUT

> > T47

> > W/D

> > CUT ( PLAYERS CHAMPIONSHIP)

> > WON ( MASTERS)

> >

> He may of been in a small slump but he was still top 30 player in the world at the time. Happens alot on pga tour, guys playing pretty terrible and then get hot one weekend and go onto a win.

 

I guess im not understanding your point of view.You made a claim that i showed you was not true and were back to he was 30th.He hadnt won in 2 years memorial 84' and had a few 2nd place finishes in 85.Tiger was 12th in the world and had won within the last 6 months and contended in the last 2 majors.Jacks was a way bigger surprised considering he was 46 and change and hadnt won anywhere for 2 years. Im not trying to argue with you but your premise is way off.Tiger was expected to improve on last years Masters and did he ever.I didnt expect him to win but thought he would contend and i believed it was his best chance to grab one this year.I think most thought so too. Anyhow just wanted to clarify

[MK7Golf21]

> @lowheel said:

> > @Redjeep83 said:

> > > @lowheel said:

> > > > @Redjeep83 said:

> > > > 2019, Jack was playing well when he won 86 masters. Was in top 30 in world ranking

> > >

> > > I dont know what you remember but dan jenkins wrote an article about him in january 86 around the west coast swing saying he was done. You should rethink your post

> > >

> > > Here are all his 86' finishes leading up to the masters:

> > > T60

> > > CUT

> > > T39

> > > CUT

> > > T47

> > > W/D

> > > CUT ( PLAYERS CHAMPIONSHIP)

> > > WON ( MASTERS)

> > >

> > He may of been in a small slump but he was still top 30 player in the world at the time. Happens alot on pga tour, guys playing pretty terrible and then get hot one weekend and go onto a win.

>

> I guess im not understanding your point of view.You made a claim that i showed you was not true and were back to he was 30th.He hadnt won in 2 years memorial 84' and had a few 2nd place finishes in 85.Tiger was 12th in the world and had won within the last 6 months and contended in the last 2 majors.Jacks was a way bigger surprised considering he was 46 and change and hadnt won anywhere for 2 years. Im not trying to argue with you but your premise is way off.Tiger was expected to improve on last years Masters and did he ever.I didnt expect him to win but thought he would contend and i believed it was his best chance to grab one this year.I think most thought so too. Anyhow just wanted to clarify

 

He was top 30 in the world, can’t be that bad to be top 30, like I said. Maybe a small slump but this happens all the time in pga tour, players in a slump and get hot on weekend and win, never mind the fact it was Jack with 17 majors.

 

Let me ask you this, did you see this coming in 2017 when Tiger could hardly walk, in pain 24/7 and not expected to play again with an injury he has been struggling with for 5 years and multiple failed surgeries ?

 

That’s where the difference lies. One was older in a small slump, the other was old as well and wasn’t expected to be physically able to swing a club again.

 

 

[redfirebird08]

> @titzercm said:

> Jack in '86 and it's not even close. I think people need to go back and watch that final round broadcast on youtube and see how Jack took it! A few observations that sound out about 86 vs 19:

> * I can't prove it, but the greens were faster in 86 than in 19

> * Jack was really a part-time player at the time. Played only a few events outside the majors. And he was 3 years older at 46.

> * Nicklaus hit a perfect drive on 13 and had 210.....Tiger had 168 (3 iron vs 8 iron)....so I think the course was playing harder even though the total yardage of AN was shorter then

> * Norman and Seve were the 2 best players in the world at that time....probably say the leader board was maybe a hair better in '86 in total. (With Rose and McIlroy out of it it's hard to say 19 was better)

> * I will always feel that Molinari lost this Masters vs Tiger won it (If Molinari plays to the center of the green on 12 I don't think Tiger wins)

> * While Norman made 5 on 18, and Seve had a few mistakes, there mistakes NEVER took them out of the tournament like Molinari

> * Nicklaus TOOK that tournament....birdies at 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 (eagle), 16, 17. (Woods had 3 birdies in that same stretch)

>

> GO WATCH IT......86 the world shook!

>

> With that being said, I was so happy for Tiger! It was awesome! What a great thread!

 

I didn't think Molinari lost it on 12. He was still tied with Tiger after that hole. They both birded 13 and Molinari had a great birdie chance to take the lead on 14 after Tiger missed his birdie attempt. The 15th hole is where Molinari lost it.

[Awsi Dooger]

This can't be serious. The 2019 Masters was one of the least compelling in recent memory, down the stretch of the final few holes. I always believed Tiger would win more majors but I hoped it would be surrounded by other players making great shots and Tiger forced to match or top them. Instead it was a race to the proverbial Ben Wright watery grave on 12, followed by mediocrity from the true contenders and some late fruitless rallies from guys who didn't rally earlier when it might have meant something.

 

Apparently the identity of the winner has clouded what actually unfolded out there. Jack got lucky in 1986 when Seve hit it into the pond. Otherwise he played stellar all-time memorable golf down the stretch. Tiger didn't have to do much of anything but stay on the skateboard once everyone else crashed early on the back nine.

[OBbogey5]

Post #152: I’m surprised you even watched such a run of the mill golf tourney.. ;)

 

You must be a true blue diehard Jim Nantz fan :)

[3jacker]

He has a point.

[OBbogey5]

I believe the whole conversation exists because of the winners, not because of the quality of the tournaments. Irregardless, I love the post!

[mosesgolf]

I give it to 1986. Jack was 46, 5 back going into back nine and shot a 30. He took out a stacked leaderboard too that had Watson, Seve, Norman, Sandy Lyle, Nick Price, Tom Kite. When Tiger is 47 or 48 Tiger will win another green jacket just to one up Jack. IMO 1986 #1 and 2019 #2 in all time best Masters. 1997 #3

[dalehead]

Jack in 86 for one reason. A lot of people thought Tiger had a chance this year. Look at the comments here on WRX. He was David Duval's pick to win. Tiger came in thinking he was playing well enough to win. Nobody in 86 was thinking Jack could win.

[dalehead]

> @Fellaheen51 said:

> After a near fatal automobile accident February 1949, Ben Hogan winning the '51 Masters two years later eclipses both. Yeah, I get it, wasn't the poll question. Keeping it in perspective, lest we forget.

 

Well, Hogan had won the U.S. Open at Merion the previous June, so the 51 Masters could hardly be considered a surprise.

 

[dlygrisse]

The amazing thing about 86 was the win “went viral” before the internet really existed. He was on the talk shows etc. 46 seemed really old back then, Jack was motivated by newspaper writers who called him washed up, even posted an article on the fridge at his rental that week. It came out of nowhere , and he never really did much again till the senior tour.

 

Tiger was a favorite last week. However I think it was really great for those that were too young to really remember him winning. Much like Jack for me. I wasn’t really into golf most of Jacks career, I started playing in 1984 or 85 really. Although as a sports fan in general I had a good idea what Jack was all about. I do remember reading in SI about the “Jack is back” US Open win in 1980 and I clearly understood he was considered the best ever by most people.

 

Both great moments, no real reason to try and justify which was better, they will both be discussed as long as the game is played.

[dlygrisse]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

>

> > @Bingo1976 said:

> > I don;t understand the quest for the 'best ever' monnicker. We should enjoy events for what they give us at the time, rather than a constant desire to compare and rank.

> > I was too young to have seen '86, but I stayed up until 3am in Hong Kong last night watching the stream on my Ipad. As someone who lost his father recently, and is soon to become a father, and was at Hoylake in '06, last night bought a tear to my eye. Not a man sob, just a bit of light dust, but to reflect back on where Woods had been to as both and athlete and a human being, and to see him triumph, is truly one of the greatest of any sporting moments of this or any generation, and something I am humble and privileged to have watched.

> Awesome!

> The family stuff after got me misty, but I was on my way, lol, it was a great story and who doesn't enjoy a little comeback and some measure of redemption at the same time. Had one of Hawkeye. my daughters texting at the time, I know what it means to her.

> Morning Drive is all over the "GOAT" discussion - sign of the times. For some reason there is a segment of the Tiger fan base that "has" to have Tiger the greatest of all time, I mean "has" to have that, and if you don't agree then you are the enemy (seen it on here for years). Small segment, and maybe it's an overreaction to the "haters", maybe it's just the level of investment in him as a fan, who knows.

> I watched Jack win in '86 as a young man in my 20s so that affects my viewpoint. But I've never been so emotionally attached to an athlete, or any person outside my family, I can't have a rational discussion or understand different points of view, but Tiger does that to some people (and not including you in that).

> If Tiger is healthy and teeing off in the wee hours (our time) in The Open, I'll be up watching (but usually am anyway if there is someone in particular I want to watch).

>

Hawkeye. This is spot on. Great post. I feel 100% the way you do. I was trying to post something similar but you said it better.

 

[RobotDoctor]

Philosophically, I see two sides that differentiate the two Masters for me. The story of the 1986 Masters is relevance. Jack Nicklaus was in the twilight of his career and happened to capture lightning in a bottle by charging back to overtake the field, make his presence known on the greatest tournament stage (his stage), and the Goliaths of the game at that time succumbed to a legend. Stuff that makes for a story too good to be true. The 2019 Masters is redemption. Arguably the greatest tournament golfer of all time, one of the very best ever to play, finding his redemption after a decade of living a nightmare. From physical to personal back to physical torments, most of us cannot phathom, the will of the man to push through these obstacles to climb to the top of the mountain again.

 

Jack Nicklaus achieved relevance once again and those of us who remember this have been affected in a manner that we will appreciate for all time. Tiger Woods achieved redemption that gives hope to those who face their own struggles in that we, too, can overcome what ever adversities with shear determination and a will of iron. Both Masters teaches us a little bit of the human spirit that can be applied to our own lives. Both Masters victories are "one" for the ages and will be spoken in high regard for many, many years. I am privileged to have seen both.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @dalehead said:

> Jack in 86 for one reason. A lot of people thought Tiger had a chance this year. Look at the comments here on WRX. He was David Duval's pick to win. Tiger came in thinking he was playing well enough to win. Nobody in 86 was thinking Jack could win.

 

I don’t disagree. That’s why it’s very interesting when people say Nicklaus (who was “washed up” at 46) had such better career longevity than TW (who was a favorite at 43).

 

 

[PZero]

86

[collindm1]

2019, no question at all.

[BearQ]

Already chimed in on this

 

Anyone watch the last putt celebration video countless amount of times in the last week. Instant happy mood.

 

The crowds at bethpage will be something remarkable. Nyc crowd at that particular course after a tiger masters win will be as wild as golf can get

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @BearQ said:

> Already chimed in on this

>

> Anyone watch the last putt celebration video countless amount of times in the last week. Instant happy mood.

>

> The crowds at bethpage will be something remarkable. Nyc crowd at that particular course after a tiger masters win will be as wild as golf can get

Replace "wild" with "rude and obnoxious" for a more accurate description of the NYC crowd.

[BearQ]

Just trying to be positive about it bru. And don’t wanna continue labeling nyc crowd in a derogatory way, although it may seem otherwise I’ve heard it’s a handful of hooligans here and there that ruin it. It’s super loud and rowdy at times no doubt but there is a general decorum. When you let in a few crazies and they are spread throughout the course it’s tough to manage.

 

To be honest whatever you label the nyc crowd at least it’s diverse. It’s not going to be your north cal folk nor will it be British open. But it’s got its own beauty if you look for it.

 

Or we can focus on the negative headlines and the bad behaviour at times. Goes both ways. The champion will have to embrace whatever the crowd chooses to be.

[Roadking2003]

1986 and it's not even close.

[heavy_hitter]

1986 and it isn't even close.