Tiger vs. Jack

[Hawkeye77]

24 minutes ago, BNGL said:

Alcohol was just as prevalent as was the adultering (didn’t know that wasn’t a word). It was just less reported on because journalism was different in the past. Nowadays any yahoo with internet access can publish stories immediately after they happen and reach literally anywhere in the world. 
 

But drug usage, car wrecks, adultering, and other vices of the like have no bearing on whether someone was a better player than another.

Bravo!

[lchang]

17 hours ago, csh19792001 said:

That's one example. Which is anecdotal,  especially compared to what I've posted in this Thread. 

 

Where is all the evidence that Nicklaus: "Did not face as many top players as the fields  do in the last 25 years or so." ?

read this:

 

[csh19792001]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

 

“If anyone has evidence that Jack's fields were a lot weaker, though, I'm all ears..”

 

 

In 1966, there were 95 players from the UK in the Open.

 

In 2018, there were 30.

 

The depth of field in 1966 is a joke compared to modern times. 

 

 

 

Ok, very good point. 

 

But...that's only ONE tournament. 

 

What about the rest? 

[csh19792001]

1 hour ago, lchang said:

read this:

 

This is truly brilliant stuff. Seriously. Amazing work by "Brock Savage".

 

Quite humbling. Changes everything.

 

What I'm wondering...just for starters....is...where do we find all the American vs. International breakdowns for all the old Majors, along with Field Sizes? 

[CT007]

Strength of field is hard to determine   

 

The adage - correlation without causation is meaningless.  That is little harsh, may be better to say , correlation does not imply causation    Bottom line is correlation is hard to determine. 

 

Just adding population or adding players from differing country’s does not improve strength of field 

 

I’d say, go back and read some on Chad Campbell   His playing performance on the Web.com , Hooters Tour , etc.  Some thought he was a top 50 player in the world but could not get out of his backer agreement 

 

There is evidence of better players today, but it is skewed based on more data, more visibility   And sometimes it is just unknown, as said earlier it was hard to get on the professional tour - both then and now.  

 

But I would say that there is equal evidence of players today being able to sustain playing tour golf and major’s golf, when they are beyond their best years - I’d say more so than in past.  See 1953 and Hogan missing the PGA

 

It’s still hard to determine.  But fun discussion  🙂

[Guy In Lyon]

4 hours ago, BNGL said:

But drug usage, car wrecks, adultering, and other vices of the like have no bearing on whether someone was a better player than another.

You may not care about how a golfer acts, both on and off the course, and be satisfied that all he/she has to do is hit the ball and get it in the hole.

Your choice.

I prefer to hope for better things when calling someone the "greatest of all time."

[Guy In Lyon]

6 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

You heard nothing about any athletes/celebrity hijinks back in those days.

Mickey Mantle was partying like a rockstar at the Copa, lots of ladies, and you heard nothing.

I mean, look at JFK 😂

The media back then did not report the things they do now.

You seem to enjoy believing that the lowest common denominator is a high standard for referring to someone as the "greatest of all time."

Your choice.

[bscinstnct]

5 minutes ago, Guy In Lyon said:

You seem to enjoy believing that the lowest common denominator is a high standard for referring to someone as the "greatest of all time."

Your choice.

 

 

 

Do you believe that admiration for Nick Faldos career should be tempered  by his infidelities against his wives?

 

Do you think he utterly lacks “class” because of his “immorality”?

 

Or do you suspend this judgment depending on your predisposition to like a certain athlete vis a vis another?

 

I quantify athletic performance on the field. And leave any ethical judgements for you and the others ; )

 

 

 

[BNGL]

32 minutes ago, Guy In Lyon said:

You may not care about how a golfer acts, both on and off the course, and be satisfied that all he/she has to do is hit the ball and get it in the hole.

Your choice.

I prefer to hope for better things when calling someone the "greatest of all time."

Well kudos to you for being one of the very very few that is able to separate the man, from the brand! I am honored to share this thread with you, I hope that I am worthy!

[BNGL]

29 minutes ago, Guy In Lyon said:

You seem to enjoy believing that the lowest common denominator is a high standard for referring to someone as the "greatest of all time."

Your choice.

It is not merely the lowest common denominator, not at all. If I may speak for bscinstict he is like 99 percent of people on this board. What I mean by that is that their only experience or interaction with players is through what they see on television or when they go to events and watch as a spectator. Which means all he cares about, and should care about when determining the greatest of all time, is the quality of play inside the ropes...because no player owes him or a majority of people on this board any rationalization for their off course behavior because it is not relevant. It only became relevant with the advent of technology and social media, giving ordinary people access into the lives of their "heroes" or other celebrity. That access has really warped peoples sense of importance into thinking that these players are more than golfers to them...they're not. If you know the players on a personal level, then by all means throw the first stone and hold them accountable but I feel safe in saying that very very few (including you) do not. Again as I said above you have to be able to separate the man from the brand. 

 

 

[BNGL]

25 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

 

Do you believe that admiration for Nick Faldos career should be tempered  by his infidelities against his wives?

 

Do you think he utterly lacks “class” because of his “immorality”?

 

Or do you suspend this judgment depending on your predisposition to like a certain athlete vis a vis another?

 

I quantify athletic performance on the field. And leave any ethical judgements for you and the others ; )

 

 

 

As it should be! Lest you know the player on a personal level, actually know them have their number in your iPhone. They owe you nothing except what goes on inside the ropes...beyond that nothing else should matter to you.

[miamistomp]

 Wilt was better than Russell and outscored and out rebounded him when playing Boston

  Russell just played on a better team and was a more acceptable guy to the general public

 

"In 142 matchups, from 1959 to 1969, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds. That's 14 points and five rebounds better than Russell."

 

Go Overbrook Panthers ! ( Wilt's alma mater and mine )

[mosesgolf]

35 minutes ago, miamistomp said:

 Wilt was better than Russell and outscored and out rebounded him when playing Boston

  Russell just played on a better team and was a more acceptable guy to the general public

 

"In 142 matchups, from 1959 to 1969, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds. That's 14 points and five rebounds better than Russell."

 

Go Overbrook Panthers ! ( Wilt's alma mater and mine )

Well I'd rather have Bill Russel's career over Wilt's. 

[miamistomp]

2 minutes ago, mosesgolf said:

Well I'd rather have Bill Russel's career over Wilt's. 

 I would rather have Byron Nelson's career than Jack or Tiger but that doesn't make him better ( not that any of this total discussion matters  😉  )

[Guy In Lyon]

12 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

 

Do you believe that admiration for Nick Faldos career should be tempered  by his infidelities against his wives?

 

Do you think he utterly lacks “class” because of his “immorality”?

 

Or do you suspend this judgment depending on your predisposition to like a certain athlete vis a vis another?

 

I quantify athletic performance on the field. And leave any ethical judgements for you and the others ; )

 

 

 

Yes, yes, no, your choice.

[Guy In Lyon]

12 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

Do you believe that admiration for Nick Faldos career should be tempered  by his infidelities against his wives?

Do you believe that admiration for O.J. Simpson's career should be tempered by that whole murder thing?

[Hawkeye77]

Edit:  never mind, lol.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[miamistomp]

When Faldo lied, nobody died- quite different than OJ

[bscinstnct]

3 hours ago, Guy In Lyon said:

Yes, yes, no, your choice.

 

Here is your post:

 

“Arnold Palmer. He had class that Jack and Tiger can only dream about.”

 

But now that you know AP was a serial philanderer, I assume “your choice” will be a complete re-examination of your feelings about this.

 

N’est ce pas? ; )

 

 

 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

3 hours ago, Guy In Lyon said:

Do you believe that admiration for O.J. Simpson's career should be tempered by that whole murder thing?

OJ!

 

Man, everybody remembers where they were when the Bronco chase flashed on TV 📺 during the Knick game! 
 

Hard to imagine a time when the Knicks were good....

 

 

 

As far as your question, do you judge adulterers the same way you judge murderers in your own life? 

Edited January 24, 2021 by bscinstnct

[Hawkeye77]

3 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

OJ!

 

Man, everybody remembers where they were when the Bronco chase flashed on TV 📺 during the Knick game! 
 

Hard to imagine a time when the Knicks were good....

 

 

 

As far as your question, do you judge adulterers the same way you judge murderers in your own life? 

Great memories of Clyde, Bradley, Wills Reed!

[bscinstnct]

6 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Great memories of Clyde, Bradley, Wills Reed!

Hawk, those champs just pre-dated me!

 

I was talking about this crew. Of course they couldn’t close the deal but amazing playoff games and last time I watched basketball 🏀. 
 

 

[Hawkeye77]

19 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

Hawk, those champs just pre-dated me!

 

I was talking about this crew. Of course they couldn’t close the deal but amazing playoff games and last time I watched basketball 🏀. 
 

 

I started losing interest when Bird retired, couldn't not watch Jordan, though, and he had BJ Armstrong and for one game in particular was lucky to have Bobby Hansen! Mostly just watched some playoffs/finals at that point, after MJ finally done had lost all interest and not a fan of what the game became, but lots of folks who really know basketball still love it.

[deadsolid...shank]

16 hours ago, miamistomp said:

 Wilt was better than Russell and outscored and out rebounded him when playing Boston

  Russell just played on a better team and was a more acceptable guy to the general public

 

"In 142 matchups, from 1959 to 1969, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds. That's 14 points and five rebounds better than Russell."

 

Go Overbrook Panthers ! ( Wilt's alma mater and mine )

But is it fair to penalize Russell because he had a better team around him?  He didn’t have to score as much, or grab as many rebounds as Wilt did.  If you switched them onto the other’s team, my guess is Russell would have much gaudier numbers while Wilt’s would be much lower. It’s easier to post big numbers when you’re the only viable option. 

[Nard_S]

54 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Still waiting to be that excited about the Knicks as I was then.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Nard_S

[csh19792001]

33 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Celtics didn't rely on, need or want Russell scoring that many points a game, for example.

 

Russell was a better all around basketball player, and made his team better.  

 

How, specifically, was Bill Russell a better all around basketball player than Wilt Chamberlain? 

 

What skills did Russell have that Wilt did not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

9 minutes ago, deadsolid...shank said:

But is it fair to penalize Russell because he had a better team around him?  He didn’t have to score as much, or grab as many rebounds as Wilt did.  If you switched them onto the other’s team, my guess is Russell would have much gaudier numbers while Wilt’s would be much lower. It’s easier to post big numbers when you’re the only viable option. 

Wilt's stats were staggering, even Russell would say Wilt was the best regular season player ever.  Pretty cool story Russell related to Feherty about Wilt inviting him over for family Thanksgiving at his mom's house and Russell getting to take a nap in Wilt's childhood bedroom.

 

But post-season?  Wilt's scoring average went down significantly, Russell's went up, same for other key stats.  In the clutch?  Russell, not Wilt.  Running the offense, triggering the fast break? Celts ran things through Russell, Wilt's teams kind of ran things for or at him (and in an incredibly successful way), but different roles.  Hear Hondo, one of the single greatest players ever:  "Russell was the key to our offense, when it came to Russ, his defense was always talked about, but rather it was his team-first mentality on the offensive side, being able to put aside the points, and become the best passer on our team".

 

Russell's teams made the playoffs consistently, won championships and won seventh games, lol, most games.  Wilt's were inconsistent in that regard.

 

It's a team game.  MJ was incredible but would he be called the GOAT by most if his Bulls didn't win NBA Championships?  Nope.  Pete Maravich was unbelievable, but hardly ever got to see him play, but no titles - if he'd pushed those knees one more year and re-signed with the Celts he'd have won a championship the year after he retired.

 

I'm in the same boat Russell vs. Wilt as I am with Jack and Tiger - pick one, enjoy your choice!  But I have mine!  

[BNGL]

23 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Wilt's stats were staggering, even Russell would say Wilt was the best regular season player ever.  Pretty cool story Russell related to Feherty about Wilt inviting him over for family Thanksgiving at his mom's house and Russell getting to take a nap in Wilt's childhood bedroom.

 

But post-season?  Wilt's scoring average went down significantly, Russell's went up, same for other key stats.  In the clutch?  Russell, not Wilt.  Running the offense, triggering the fast break? Celts ran things through Russell, Wilt's teams kind of ran things for or at him (and in an incredibly successful way), but different roles.  Hear Hondo, one of the single greatest players ever:  "Russell was the key to our offense, when it came to Russ, his defense was always talked about, but rather it was his team-first mentality on the offensive side, being able to put aside the points, and become the best passer on our team".

 

Russell's teams made the playoffs consistently, won championships and won seventh games, lol, most games.  Wilt's were inconsistent in that regard.

 

It's a team game.  MJ was incredible but would he be called the GOAT by most if his Bulls didn't win NBA Championships?  Nope.  Pete Maravich was unbelievable, but hardly ever got to see him play, but no titles - if he'd pushed those knees one more year and re-signed with the Celts he'd have won a championship the year after he retired.

 

I'm in the same boat Russell vs. Wilt as I am with Jack and Tiger - pick one, enjoy your choice!  But I have mine!  

Also worth noting that in the 61-62 season Wilt averaged 50 points per game...but Russel won the MVP which at that time was voted on by the players in the league (I believe it changed to the media having the power to vote in the 79-80 season).

[Hawkeye77]

20 minutes ago, BNGL said:

Also worth noting that in the 61-62 season Wilt averaged 50 points per game...but Russel won the MVP which at that time was voted on by the players in the league (I believe it changed to the media having the power to vote in the 79-80 season).

 

Great get!

[Forged4ever]

On 1/18/2021 at 5:03 PM, Christosterone said:

First, welcome to the community, it's great to have you👊
 

Secondly, and it's only fitting that his response was the first post in your thread, as good Bud Christosterone succinctly concisely and briefly answered your question😉

 

Though you are in all probability not familiar with me or my myriad rambling rants which have littered this board for years, I will just say that "succinctly, concisely & briefly," are three words that I have no f*ckin idea as to their meanings, much less their application🤪
 

That said, let me say that I have an IT guru Bud over at the club, who does spreadsheets of spreadsheets just for sh*ts & giggles, and he did the Mother of All Comparative Spread Sheets comparing Jack vs. Tiger in more categories than I even knew existed(73 categories), and I've Played/been around this game for half of a century plus three years, lol.  He then brought his finished work into our Men's Card Room and dropped em(it was actually two huge sheets) on the table and at the bottom, the very last word on this massive data dump, was one word:

 

Jack

 

I, on the other hand, being the simple minded motherf***** that I am, grabbed a black marker from the bar, walked over to the second sheet, and in a large swirl, drew one number and circled it:

 

18

 

That, my Friend, data wise, is as deep as I have to go. 
 

However, and I have mentioned this before, I would have no problem with the statement that I heard Jack agree to as I, Maddie, my Father and two of Jack's friends were having lunch at Isleworth a few years back. One of his Buds posed the question, "would you have a problem with those that say that Tiger is the Greatest Golfer of All Time and that you are the Greatest Champion of All Time?" 

His response was as succinct, concise and brief as Chris's meme above:

 

"I would not"

 

So, there ya have it, from the GOAT himself🤷🏼‍♂️

 

Oh, and for me, this post is brief, lolol😉

 

Enjoy your time on the board Chris👊
RP

Edited January 24, 2021 by Forged4ever