Greatest male player ever

[Will Par]

Players who won at least 3 majors during the same time period that Nicklaus competed: Palmer 7, Player 9, Boros 3, Casper 3, Trevino 6, Floyd 4, Watson 8, Seve 5, Larry Nelson 3, Hale Irwin 3.

Players who won at least 3 majors during the same time period that Woods competes: Mickelson 4, Els, 4, Singh 3, Harrington 3.

Jack had to beat Hall of Fame players who knew how to win majors. Tiger's competition is bush league in comparison. There may be more really good players today, but Tiger has seldom faced the quality of really great players that Nicklaus faced.

[rjp322]

[quote name='Will Par' timestamp='1368281804' post='7011548']
Players who won at least 3 majors during the same time period that Nicklaus competed: Palmer 7, Player 9, Boros 3, Casper 3, Trevino 6, Floyd 4, Watson 8, Seve 5, Larry Nelson 3, Hale Irwin 3.

Players who won at least 3 majors during the same time period that Woods competes: Mickelson 4, Els, 4, Singh 3, Harrington 3.

Jack had to beat Hall of Fame players who knew how to win majors. Tiger's competition is bush league in comparison. There may be more really good players today, but Tiger has seldom faced the quality of really great players that Nicklaus faced.
[/quote]

Simply just isnt true. This just goes to show how deep fields are and anyone can truly win. This argument is just beating a dead horse though because some peoples opinion wont change regardless of facts. I hear this argument all the time about jack played greats and tiger didn't. Tonight ill post a summary of everyone of jacks majors wins and let me tell you this now. The greats werent up top for the most part. Its pretty funny actually and will just destroy that argument

[Will Par]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368282653' post='7011580']
[quote name='Will Par' timestamp='1368281804' post='7011548']
Players who won at least 3 majors during the same time period that Nicklaus competed: Palmer 7, Player 9, Boros 3, Casper 3, Trevino 6, Floyd 4, Watson 8, Seve 5, Larry Nelson 3, Hale Irwin 3.

Players who won at least 3 majors during the same time period that Woods competes: Mickelson 4, Els, 4, Singh 3, Harrington 3.

Jack had to beat Hall of Fame players who knew how to win majors. Tiger's competition is bush league in comparison. There may be more really good players today, but Tiger has seldom faced the quality of really great players that Nicklaus faced.
[/quote]

Simply just isnt true. This just goes to show how deep fields are and anyone can truly win. This argument is just beating a dead horse though because some peoples opinion wont change regardless of facts. I hear this argument all the time about jack played greats and tiger didn't. Tonight ill post a summary of everyone of jacks majors wins and let me tell you this now. The greats werent up top for the most part. Its pretty funny actually and will just destroy that argument
[/quote]

If you are going to measure greatness by number of majors won, you have to measure the greatness of competition by number of majors won. But I'll agree with you on one thing, some peoples opinions wont change regardless of facts. The facts I stated in the two sentences above my opinion are true facts.

[tstephen]

jack finished 2nd to the other greats. Look at his runner-ups. Without Jack's rivals he would have over 25 majors.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368282653' post='7011580']
[quote name='Will Par' timestamp='1368281804' post='7011548']
Players who won at least 3 majors during the same time period that Nicklaus competed: Palmer 7, Player 9, Boros 3, Casper 3, Trevino 6, Floyd 4, Watson 8, Seve 5, Larry Nelson 3, Hale Irwin 3.

Players who won at least 3 majors during the same time period that Woods competes: Mickelson 4, Els, 4, Singh 3, Harrington 3.

Jack had to beat Hall of Fame players who knew how to win majors. Tiger's competition is bush league in comparison. There may be more really good players today, but Tiger has seldom faced the quality of really great players that Nicklaus faced.
[/quote]

Simply just isnt true. This just goes to show how deep fields are and anyone can truly win. This argument is just beating a dead horse though because some peoples [b]opinion wont change regardless of facts[/b]. I hear this argument all the time about jack played greats and tiger didn't. Tonight ill post a summary of everyone of jacks majors wins and let me tell you this now. The greats werent up top for the most part. Its pretty funny actually and will just destroy that argument
[/quote]

What "facts" have you presented. You are obviously a huge Tiger fan, and thats great. But this entire argument, even all the #'s and %'s you're throwing out there mean nothing. It's your opinion, which differs from my opinion. Neither one is any more valid than another.

In my opinion, the fields are undoubtedly deeper now, but not better. Would you rather have the group of Watson, Palmer, Player as opposed to Phil, Ernie, and Padraig. I know which group I would choose. I still maintain that Jack beat better "closers" than Tiger has, but Tiger has probably played the most spectacular golf I've ever seen.

But, as of right now, the measuring stick to "GOAT" is still major championships won.

[Frostfield]

How can you say a deeper field isn't a better field? That's what makes it better. It's not really debatable.

[rjp322]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368285334' post='7011746']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368282653' post='7011580']
[quote name='Will Par' timestamp='1368281804' post='7011548']
Players who won at least 3 majors during the same time period that Nicklaus competed: Palmer 7, Player 9, Boros 3, Casper 3, Trevino 6, Floyd 4, Watson 8, Seve 5, Larry Nelson 3, Hale Irwin 3.

Players who won at least 3 majors during the same time period that Woods competes: Mickelson 4, Els, 4, Singh 3, Harrington 3.

Jack had to beat Hall of Fame players who knew how to win majors. Tiger's competition is bush league in comparison. There may be more really good players today, but Tiger has seldom faced the quality of really great players that Nicklaus faced.
[/quote]

Simply just isnt true. This just goes to show how deep fields are and anyone can truly win. Thisent is just beating a dead horse though because some peoples [b]opinion wont change regardless of facts[/b]. I hear this argument all the time about jack played greats and tiger didn't. Tonight ill post a summary of everyone of jacks majors wins and let me tell you this now. The greats werent up top for the most part. Its pretty funny actually and will just destroy that argument
[/quote]

What "facts" have you presented. You are obviously a huge Tiger fan, and thats great. But this entire argument, even all the #'s and %'s you're throwing out there mean nothing. It's your opinion, which differs from my opinion. Neither one is any more valid than another.

In my opinion, the fields are undoubtedly deeper now, but not better. Would you rather have the group of Watson, Palmer, Player as opposed to Phil, Ernie, and Padraig. I know which group I would choose. I still maintain that Jack beat better "closers" than Tiger has, but Tiger has probably played the most spectacular golf I've ever seen.

But, as of right now, the measuring stick to "GOAT" is still major championships won.
[/quote]

Numbers dont lie. Im not sure how you can say numbers dont mean anything. Judging GOAT by one stat is pretty funny and biased. I go by the numbers. The scoring average is better today too and the separation between the 1st and last player is smaller than before. Michael jordan is the GOAT in basketball and does not have the most rings. Cant use 1 stat. Im gonna post some stuff later tonight that is saved on another forum because we are always debating this. Tiger has more wins already at his age than jack did in his career and more than double the win% than jack. How can you throw those numbers out the window?! The only reason there were these so called greats in the past is because only a limited number of players could realistically win while today anyone can win so it is far tougher to close when the field is far better. Like I said im gonna post a summary of jacks wins. These so called greats were not in contention when he won.

[Dizz]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1368283829' post='7011648']
jack finished 2nd to the other greats. Look at his runner-ups. Without Jack's rivals he would have over 25 majors.
[/quote]

Maybe... The reality is more likely that there were only a handful of guys that can win, not entire fields. Obviously your second tier players are going to win more if there are only 20 guys that can play at that level for the week.

I think Tiger and Jack are both ahead of their times but I really think Tiger is the top. Until Tiger wins 19 this debate will continue.... Winning golf tournaments now gets harder every year.

The equipment argument makes no sense to me though... Everyone is playing the same equipment and courses. Equipment is much better today but courses are longer and harder. I think green speed is the biggest factor.

[deadsolid...shank]

And that one stat is the one that is currently and universally accepted as the measure for the best ever. Major Championship Wins. You may not like that, but at this point it is the truth. This is such a circular argument, it's been debated to death, and both sides have very valid points. But there is no way to convince one camp that they're wrong, just wont' happen. It's a matter of opinon. So the "so-called" greats as you put it were not in contention when Jack won (I have no idea if that is true or not), but what has happen to all the great players of Tiger's era when he is in contention? I haven't seen many of them step up to the plate and really push him down the stretch either.

I'll still say two things, I'll take the group of Watson, Player, Palmer, etc over Mickelson, Els, Harrington, etc. Thats my opinion (by the way, you wont' seem to answer that question).

And secondly, until you can get the criteria changed, the determining factor is still Majors.

[paulshack]

tiger.. bottom line

[rjp322]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368287533' post='7011856']
And that one stat is the one that is currently and universally accepted as the measure for the best ever. Major Championship Wins. You may not like that, but at this point it is the truth. This is such a circular argument, it's been debated to death, and both sides have very valid points. But there is no way to convince one camp that they're wrong, just wont' happen. It's a matter of opinon. So the "so-called" greats as you put it were not in contention when Jack won (I have no idea if that is true or not), but what has happen to all the great players of Tiger's era when he is in contention? I haven't seen many of them step up to the plate and really push him down the stretch either.

I'll still say two things, I'll take the group of Watson, Player, Palmer, etc over Mickelson, Els, Harrington, etc. Thats my opinion (by the way, you wont' seem to answer that question).

And secondly, until you can get the criteria changed, the determining factor is still Majors.
[/quote]
Didnt see your question the first time sorry but ill take todays players happily. I think in the long run its gonna be pretty close anyways that it wont matter. Also who says majors determines GOAT? Media? That chamblee moron? The fact is one stat doesnt determine GOAT plain and simple.

Here is a question for ya. Who is the more dominant player? Tiger or jack?

[Bogie_Nights]

Obviously Jack, until Tiger gets to #18 (and I think he will).

I'll use the same measuring stick on Tiger that he uses on himself.

[Snufles]

[quote name='ThominOH' timestamp='1368270314' post='7011056']
[quote name='Snufles' timestamp='1368269953' post='7011040']
[quote name='ThominOH' timestamp='1368263868' post='7010928']
[quote name='jmvargas' timestamp='1368263531' post='7010920']
based purely on their records i would have to choose bobby jones and jack nicklaus....unless tiger breaks jack's records.
[/quote]But shouldn't Jack's 55 top 10's in majors mean something compared to Tiger's 22? Just saying..
[/quote]

If you didn't get the trophy, you lost.
[/quote]ahh So getting the FedEx trophy is all that matters? TY for clearing that up.. lol
[/quote]

Yep second in the FedEx means you didn't win that one either.

[bscinstnct]

Its amazing to consider that in the TW era

Phil and Ernie are closest with 4 Majors each.

4 majors each over the course of their 20-year or so careers.

Tiger won 4 Majors in a 1 year period.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368288440' post='7011916']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368287533' post='7011856']
And that one stat is the one that is currently and universally accepted as the measure for the best ever. Major Championship Wins. You may not like that, but at this point it is the truth. This is such a circular argument, it's been debated to death, and both sides have very valid points. But there is no way to convince one camp that they're wrong, just wont' happen. It's a matter of opinon. So the "so-called" greats as you put it were not in contention when Jack won (I have no idea if that is true or not), but what has happen to all the great players of Tiger's era when he is in contention? I haven't seen many of them step up to the plate and really push him down the stretch either.

I'll still say two things, I'll take the group of Watson, Player, Palmer, etc over Mickelson, Els, Harrington, etc. Thats my opinion (by the way, you wont' seem to answer that question).

And secondly, until you can get the criteria changed, the determining factor is still Majors.
[/quote]
Didnt see your question the first time sorry but ill take todays players happily. I think in the long run its gonna be pretty close anyways that it wont matter. Also who says majors determines GOAT? Media? That chamblee moron? The fact is one stat doesnt determine GOAT plain and simple.

Here is a question for ya. Who is the more dominant player? Tiger or jack?
[/quote]

Good question. Tiger has won by monstourous numbers, like I said earlier, I think he has played the most spectatular golf. I guess you could use that for a synonym for dominant. AT times. Remember also the quote in reference to Jack "he knew he was going to win, we knew he was going to win, and he knew that we knew he was going to win" (or something pretty similar to that). That testifies to his dominance also. Which brings the circular arguement back around, you don't think he beat as good of players as Tiger has.

As for who says the majors are the determining factor, I can't tell you who or what said it us. But as of right now, it just is, no matter how hard you try to deny it. To most everyone but the ardent Tiger fans. Chamblee? why even bring him into this except you know he doesn't like Tiger and you're using him to try to add credence to your argument. You know as well as I do that the majors have been the measuring stick since long, long before Brandell Chamblee.

And like someone else said, that seems to be the criteria that Tiger himself uses.

[Guia]

There is only one answer "Nicklaus", until someone best his 18 Major wins. Thats why we keep records.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1368290395' post='7012022']
Its amazing to consider that in the TW era

Phil and Ernie are closest with 4 Majors each.

4 majors each over the course of their 20-year or so careers.

Tiger won 4 Majors in a 1 year period.
[/quote]

Speaks to two things. What a phenomal year Tiger had, and that maybe the other guys of Jack's era weren't as bad (compared to Tiger's era players) as a lot of people would have you believe.

[rjp322]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368290427 post='7012024']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368288440' post='7011916']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368287533' post='7011856']
And that one stat is the one that is currently and universally accepted as the measure for the best ever. Major Championship Wins. You may not like that, but at this point it is the truth. This is such a circular argument, it's been debated to death, and both sides have very valid points. But there is no way to convince one camp that they're wrong, just wont' happen. It's a matter of opinon. So the "so-called" greats as you put it were not in contention when Jack won (I have no idea if that is true or not), but what has happen to all the great players of Tiger's era when he is in contention? I haven't seen many of them step up to the plate and really push him down the stretch either.

I'll still say two things, I'll take the group of Watson, Player, Palmer, etc over Mickelson, Els, Harrington, etc. Thats my opinion (by the way, you wont' seem to answer that question).

And secondly, until you can get the criteria changed, the determining factor is still Majors.
[/quote]
Didnt see your question the first time sorry but ill take todays players happily. I think in the long run its gonna be pretty close anyways that it wont matter. Also who says majors determines GOAT? Media? That chamblee moron? The fact is one stat doesnt determine GOAT plain and simple.

Here is a question for ya. Who is the more dominant player? Tiger or jack?
[/quote]

Good question. Tiger has won by monstourous numbers, like I said earlier, I think he has played the most spectatular golf. I guess you could use that for a synonym for dominant. AT times. Remember also the quote in reference to Jack "he knew he was going to win, we knew he was going to win, and he knew that we knew he was going to win" (or something pretty similar to that). That testifies to his dominance also. Which brings the circular arguement back around, you don't think he beat as good of players as Tiger has.

As for who says the majors are the determining factor, I can't tell you who or what said it us. But as of right now, it just is, no matter how hard you try to deny it. To most everyone but the ardent Tiger fans. Chamblee? why even bring him into this except you know he doesn't like Tiger and you're using him to try to add credence to your argument. You know as well as I do that the majors have been the measuring stick since long, long before Brandell Chamblee.

And like someone else said, that seems to be the criteria that Tiger himself uses.
[/quote]
I dont believe that is the measuring stick and there Is never only one measuring stick. Sure it is important and needs to be considered but it is not the only thing. If a player won 20 majors and had 0 other wins would you consider him the goat? I sure hope not. We both know the only reason tiger says it now is because he has broken almost all other records and if he hasnt already he will such as most wins. It is what it is though. The jack side won't budge regardless how overwhelming the numbers are for tiger. Jack fans will just keep hanging on to that number 19 until tiger shatters it because that is the only stat that favors jack

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368290884' post='7012054']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368290427 post='7012024']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368288440' post='7011916']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368287533' post='7011856']
And that one stat is the one that is currently and universally accepted as the measure for the best ever. Major Championship Wins. You may not like that, but at this point it is the truth. This is such a circular argument, it's been debated to death, and both sides have very valid points. But there is no way to convince one camp that they're wrong, just wont' happen. It's a matter of opinon. So the "so-called" greats as you put it were not in contention when Jack won (I have no idea if that is true or not), but what has happen to all the great players of Tiger's era when he is in contention? I haven't seen many of them step up to the plate and really push him down the stretch either.

I'll still say two things, I'll take the group of Watson, Player, Palmer, etc over Mickelson, Els, Harrington, etc. Thats my opinion (by the way, you wont' seem to answer that question).

And secondly, until you can get the criteria changed, the determining factor is still Majors.
[/quote]
Didnt see your question the first time sorry but ill take todays players happily. I think in the long run its gonna be pretty close anyways that it wont matter. Also who says majors determines GOAT? Media? That chamblee moron? The fact is one stat doesnt determine GOAT plain and simple.

Here is a question for ya. Who is the more dominant player? Tiger or jack?
[/quote]

Good question. Tiger has won by monstourous numbers, like I said earlier, I think he has played the most spectatular golf. I guess you could use that for a synonym for dominant. AT times. Remember also the quote in reference to Jack "he knew he was going to win, we knew he was going to win, and he knew that we knew he was going to win" (or something pretty similar to that). That testifies to his dominance also. Which brings the circular arguement back around, you don't think he beat as good of players as Tiger has.

As for who says the majors are the determining factor, I can't tell you who or what said it us. But as of right now, it just is, no matter how hard you try to deny it. To most everyone but the ardent Tiger fans. Chamblee? why even bring him into this except you know he doesn't like Tiger and you're using him to try to add credence to your argument. You know as well as I do that the majors have been the measuring stick since long, long before Brandell Chamblee.

And like someone else said, that seems to be the criteria that Tiger himself uses.
[/quote]
I dont believe that is the measuring stick and there Is never only one measuring stick. Sure it is important and needs to be considered but it is not the only thing. If a player won 20 majors and had 0 other wins would you consider him the goat? I sure hope not. We both know the only reason tiger says it now is because he has broken almost all other records and if he hasnt already he will such as most wins. It is what it is though. The jack side won't budge regardless how overwhelming the numbers are for tiger. Jack fans will just keep hanging on to that number 19 until tiger shatters it because that is the only stat that favors jack
[/quote]

OK you win, that is not the correct measure. The rest of the golf world will continue to use majors as the determining factor, but you go with how you see it. That is certainly well within your rights.

[rjp322]

I dont think the rest of the golf world goes by that. It is just so overhyped by the media. Funny story is that jack knew he wasnt going to catch Snead for most wins so decided to focus on majors more. Ill find the quote later. Sounds like a cop out to me. Answer this question. 20 majors and no other wins. GOAT?

[Ajit]

Tiger Woods. His win rate blows everyone else out of the water. That's without even getting into the issue of the deeper fields he has had to contend with.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368290520' post='7012030']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1368290395' post='7012022']
Its amazing to consider that in the TW era

Phil and Ernie are closest with 4 Majors each.

4 majors each over the course of their 20-year or so careers.

Tiger won 4 Majors in a 1 year period.
[/quote]

Speaks to two things. What a phenomal year Tiger had, and that maybe the other guys of Jack's era weren't as bad (compared to Tiger's era players) as a lot of people would have you believe.
[/quote]

Depends.

Do you think Gary Player wins 9 and watson wins 8 if they played in the TW era?

[csiachos]

Tiger. It's just like other sports, how the newest generation has multiple guys doing what only one could do in the past. Another analogy is how little brothers almost always end up being better than their big brothers. It's unfair to say who would be better, bc who knows how Nivklaus would have performed with today's talent. He probably would have been awesome, but who knows.

[cdnglf]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368285334' post='7011746']
In my opinion, the fields are undoubtedly deeper now, but not better. Would you rather have the group of Watson, Palmer, Player as opposed to Phil, Ernie, and Padraig. I know which group I would choose.
[/quote]

Palmer is 20 years older than Watson, and won his last PGA Tour event in 1973. Watson didn't win on tour until 1974.

[PedronNiall]

I'll just post this in regards to depth of fields: Jack himself has stated on numerous occasions that the fields now are consistently as good if not better than what he faced in his day.

Even though Tiger has a higher win percentage and a higher number of total wins, if he doesn't hit 19 then it will always be debatable where he falls on the list.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1368292486' post='7012160']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368290520' post='7012030']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1368290395' post='7012022']
Its amazing to consider that in the TW era

Phil and Ernie are closest with 4 Majors each.

4 majors each over the course of their 20-year or so careers.

Tiger won 4 Majors in a 1 year period.
[/quote]

Speaks to two things. What a phenomal year Tiger had, and that maybe the other guys of Jack's era weren't as bad (compared to Tiger's era players) as a lot of people would have you believe.
[/quote]

Depends.

Do you think Gary Player wins 9 and watson wins 8 if they played in the TW era?
[/quote]

Thats a good question. I don't think they do win quite as many (but who knows Watson nearly beat everyone in the Tiger era when he was in his 50's), I would never argue that the fields are deeper. But, if you had to pick a player to close out a major, Watson or Phil, Player or Ernie, Palmer or Padraig. I still think the guys in Jack's era were better at closing out tournaments.

At rjp322 above, I don't think that is a realistic question. I can't imagine the scenario where someone would win 20 majors and nothing else.

Oh well, it's always a good debate. But it's time to head to the course. The one thing I'm 100% certain of.....I won't be winning a major any time soon.

[Bogie_Nights]

[quote name='rjp322'
timestamp='1368291565' post='7012112']
I dont think the rest of the golf world goes by that. It is just so overhyped by the media. Funny story is that jack knew he wasnt going to catch Snead for most wins so decided to focus on majors more. Ill find the quote later. Sounds like a cop out to me. Answer this question. 20 majors and no other wins. GOAT?
[/quote]

I think you make great points, but I also think Tiger measures himself that way. As for the rest of the golfing world, They're probably divided on the majors issue.

I also predict that in 4-5 years (barring injury) this will be a moot point.

Also, 20 majors, nothing else, wouldn't cut it. But I don't even think that's possible.

The main reason this discussion is mainly Tiger/Jack is because they have a combination of many majors, many regular victories.

Hardly anyone has mentioned Snead

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1368294333' post='7012274']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368294187' post='7012262']
At rjp322 above, I don't think that is a realistic question. I can't imagine the scenario where someone would win 20 majors and nothing else.
[/quote]

Doug Sanders can.
[/quote]


??? Sorry, don't understand.

[deadsolid...shank]

And I think Son_of_Sahm is correct. I don't think it will an issue in a few years. Barring another injury I think Tiger will reach 19.

[cdnglf]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368294427' post='7012282']
[quote name='cdnglf' timestamp='1368294333' post='7012274']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368294187' post='7012262']
At rjp322 above, I don't think that is a realistic question. I can't imagine the scenario where someone would win 20 majors and nothing else.
[/quote]

Doug Sanders can.
[/quote]


??? Sorry, don't understand.
[/quote]

Sorry, my mistake. I read it the other way: someone who had won 20 events, but no majors.