Greatest male player ever

[JustTheTips]

Well in honor of today
Rounds of 61 or better:
jack 0
Tiger 5
5>0:)

[tstephen]

Rounds of 60:
Phil Mickelson 2
Zack Johnson 2
Tiger a big fat 0..... what was that classy word that came out of his mouth after he missed the putt on 17?

ALSO.....DID THE TIGER GUY'S SEE "TOP 10: THE GREATEST GOLFERS EVER" STORY ON THE HOME PAGE OF GOLFWRX RIGHT HERE? And today 8/2/13 when Tiger fires 61 on his #2 home course.

LOOKS LIKE I WIN AGAIN.....THANK-YOU VERY LITTLE and we will keep you posted when and if Tiger reaches #1.

I am ok with Hagen ahead of Jones but the author did comment regarding that topic.

[jons1]

records and personal character are not one in the same debate. people need to leave Eldericks personal antics and social flaws out of it. no matter what is said, he will continue to curse, spit, let go of clubs or pound them on the ground, bang random hos, experiment with performance enhancing formulas of the legal nature , hang out with weird yes people, and that's that. It's like saying he won't have one tooth discolored some day despite non stop whitening of it... you can't change a tigers stripes. oh... Jack is the best... Tiger is a freak... Jones is a legend.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375503422' post='7595538']
ALSO.....DID THE TIGER GUY'S SEE "TOP 10: THE GREATEST GOLFERS EVER" STORY ON THE HOME PAGE OF GOLFWRX RIGHT HERE?
[/quote]

LOL, I didn't even know this place had stories. I just come here for the forum.

And I don't think I've missed much. That story, to my complete lack of surprise, had better grammar and punctuation than most posts from Jack fans, but otherwise it was exactly the same --- a long preamble about how he's going to carefully consider all these factors, but then when he gives his ranking, it's Jack 1 and Tiger 2, because until someone "tops his record 18 major championships, there is no question that “The Golden Bear” is the greatest golfer of all time."

So majors are really all that matters. And then he ranks Hogan ahead of Hagen.

Deja vu all over again.

[MattTheTaff]

My entire dissertation was shorter than some of the posts this bloody thread

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='MattTheTaff' timestamp='1375518876' post='7595944']
My entire dissertation was shorter than some of the posts this bloody thread
[/quote]

That's the great thing about DeVry University.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375513334' post='7595860']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375503422' post='7595538']
ALSO.....DID THE TIGER GUY'S SEE "TOP 10: THE GREATEST GOLFERS EVER" STORY ON THE HOME PAGE OF GOLFWRX RIGHT HERE?
[/quote]

LOL, I didn't even know this place had stories. I just come here for the forum.

And I don't think I've missed much. That story, to my complete lack of surprise, had better grammar and punctuation than most posts from Jack fans, but otherwise it was exactly the same --- a long preamble about how he's going to carefully consider all these factors, but then when he gives his ranking, it's Jack 1 and Tiger 2, because until someone "tops his record 18 major championships, there is no question that “The Golden Bear” is the greatest golfer of all time."

So majors are really all that matters. And then he ranks Hogan ahead of Hagen.

Deja vu all over again.
[/quote]

Hagen is only so high up on the list because of the PGA championships he won in consecutive years. In an era when amateurs were very possibly better than professionals and Jim Barnes and Sarazen his only competition. So Brock, I went into "Ranking the Greatest Golfers at the PGA Championship" and your boy Hagen was not even #1 on that site. In order Jack, Tiger, Walter, Sam, and then Eugenio Saraceni(born on the same day as my Grand-Mammy). BEST OF ALL - HAGEN NEVER WON A MAJOR THAT JONES PLAYED and Bobby Jones won 5 majors in which Hagen played, both players winning the majority of their majors in the 20's. Hagen was 4th in winning percentage for the PGA Championship matches with Hogan ahead of him knowing how you Tiger guys are so into percentages. But most of all the greatest of all the finals was Hagen's only finals loss to my buddy Eugenio.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375538580' post='7596588']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375513334' post='7595860']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375503422' post='7595538']
ALSO.....DID THE TIGER GUY'S SEE "TOP 10: THE GREATEST GOLFERS EVER" STORY ON THE HOME PAGE OF GOLFWRX RIGHT HERE?
[/quote]

LOL, I didn't even know this place had stories. I just come here for the forum.

And I don't think I've missed much. That story, to my complete lack of surprise, had better grammar and punctuation than most posts from Jack fans, but otherwise it was exactly the same --- a long preamble about how he's going to carefully consider all these factors, but then when he gives his ranking, it's Jack 1 and Tiger 2, because until someone "tops his record 18 major championships, there is no question that “The Golden Bear” is the greatest golfer of all time."

So majors are really all that matters. And then he ranks Hogan ahead of Hagen.

Deja vu all over again.
[/quote]

Hagen is only so high up on the list because of the PGA championships he won in consecutive years. In an era when amateurs were very possibly better than professionals and Jim Barnes and Sarazen his only competition. So Brock, I went into "Ranking the Greatest Golfers at the PGA Championship" and your boy Hagen was not even #1 on that site. In order Jack, Tiger, Walter, Sam, and then Eugenio Saraceni(born on the same day as my Grand-Mammy). BEST OF ALL - HAGEN NEVER WON A MAJOR THAT JONES PLAYED and Bobby Jones won 5 majors in which Hagen played, both players winning the majority of their majors in the 20's. Hagen was 4th in winning percentage for the PGA Championship matches with Hogan ahead of him knowing how you Tiger guys are so into percentages. But most of all the greatest of all the finals was Hagen's only finals loss to my buddy Eugenio.
[/quote]

I notice you are still not answering the question: In which specific years was Jack the most dominant player for that year?

[turtleback]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375513334' post='7595860']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375503422' post='7595538']
ALSO.....DID THE TIGER GUY'S SEE "TOP 10: THE GREATEST GOLFERS EVER" STORY ON THE HOME PAGE OF GOLFWRX RIGHT HERE?
[/quote]

LOL, I didn't even know this place had stories. I just come here for the forum.

And I don't think I've missed much. That story, to my complete lack of surprise, had better grammar and punctuation than most posts from Jack fans, but otherwise it was exactly the same --- a long preamble about how he's going to carefully consider all these factors, but then when he gives his ranking, it's Jack 1 and Tiger 2, because until someone "tops his record 18 major championships, there is no question that “The Golden Bear” is the greatest golfer of all time."

So majors are really all that matters. And then he ranks Hogan ahead of Hagen.

Deja vu all over again.
[/quote]

It is also hard to take someone seriously who thinks the Great Triumvirate of Early 1900s British golf was Vardon, Taylor and Ray. Ray wasn't in that class. The Great Triumvirate was Vardon, Taylor and Braid. They won, respectively, 6, 5, and 5 Opens while Ray won one.


Here is an interesting question: IF Tiger ends up passing Jack, will the criteria shift going forward and the next candidate for GOAT be held to a standard of exceeding Tiger in BOTH majors AND WGCs? Judging by the past 30 years it only seems reasonable to assume that with each GOAT the criterion changes going forward. Jack was the first one to be acclaimed the GOAT based on winning the most majors and that became the criterion for the next crop (at least among the thinking-challenged).

Ahh those halcyon days of yore when people could think and things were decided upon holistically. People could argue about who was better, Hogan or Snead without some mindless 9>7 argument being made. And people could argue about which NY centerfielder, among Mantle, Mays, and Snider was best without some yahoo saying HRs are most important so they are all that counts.

[redonsundays]

Tiger Woods. He will eventually get Jack in wins by some 30. He has beaten the best fields in golf at the WGC 18 times, he has won the Players twice, won 3 Amateurs, holds cut streak, won 4 majors in a row, beat US Open field by 15 and Masters by 12, has won 7 straight times and 6 straight times, holds the scoring record on the PGA Tour and on and on. And to add he is ONLY 37 with those records listed.

I believe majors are our highest standard in golf BUT it's gotten ridiculous that that's all we talk or care about. I'm not one of those people and never will be. You take a players ENTIRE career.
And when i take Tiger's career and compare it overall to anyone elses it's Tiger with Jack right behind.

So even right this minute it's Tiger.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375549183' post='7597310']
Here is an interesting question: IF Tiger ends up passing Jack, will the criteria shift going forward and the next candidate for GOAT be held to a standard of exceeding Tiger in BOTH majors AND WGCs? Judging by the past 30 years it only seems reasonable to assume that with each GOAT the criterion changes going forward. Jack was the first one to be acclaimed the GOAT based on winning the most majors and that became the criterion for the next crop (at least among the thinking-challenged).
[/quote]

Yes, I think Tiger will be doing the game a great service if he gets 19 majors, because then all the Jack fans will be flailing to find some other criterion, and people will start looking at the entire career again. Unfortunately for them, Tiger's entire career is the best by miles.

You know that if Jack had managed to beat Snead's career wins record, that would have been just as cherished as the 18 majors.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='redonsundays' timestamp='1375553596' post='7597646']
I believe majors are our highest standard in golf BUT it's gotten ridiculous that that's all we talk or care about. I'm not one of those people and never will be. You take a players ENTIRE career.
[/quote]

Kind of agree, though Tiger is the biggest reason people only care about the majors. That's a poor attitude to have. Why even bother having a PGA Tour if the majors are the only thing that matter? The Tour has done a lot more for charity than the 4 majors ever have.

[rafer11]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1375559273' post='7598012']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375549183' post='7597310']
Here is an interesting question: IF Tiger ends up passing Jack, will the criteria shift going forward and the next candidate for GOAT be held to a standard of exceeding Tiger in BOTH majors AND WGCs? Judging by the past 30 years it only seems reasonable to assume that with each GOAT the criterion changes going forward. Jack was the first one to be acclaimed the GOAT based on winning the most majors and that became the criterion for the next crop (at least among the thinking-challenged).
[/quote]

Yes, I think Tiger will be doing the game a great service if he gets 19 majors, because then all the Jack fans will be flailing to find some other criterion, and people will start looking at the entire career again. Unfortunately for them, Tiger's entire career is the best by miles.

You know that if Jack had managed to beat Snead's career wins record, that would have been just as cherished as the 18 majors.
[/quote]

Then they'll bring up his numerous seconds. If you can't convince idiots now, you won't be able to convince them if Tiger has 50 Majors, and 150 wins.

[tstephen]

Or maybe the Tiger guys can start their own Golfwrx and call it Tigerwrx allowing only Tiger fans to join. The editor of Golfwrx would not have run "Top10, The Greatest Golfers Ever" if he did not agree with the conclusion formed by the writer assigned the story with Jack #1.

[tstephen]

Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

No, he was calling some of the posters that. Like the ones who still refuse to answer a simple question. Like which specific years Jack was the dominant player for the year.

And don't worry, your position among the posters is secure.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522'] Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

I would like to see the paperwork on that.

[Snufles]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1371095854' post='7228242']
He should be able to repeat the T-Slam or better since he has said recently that his best golf is still ahead of him on more than 1 occasion. I think he took it to heart from his dad that the only slam is a calendar slam. It was really cool that he was holding all 4 at the same time, but it was also cool that when Doral became a WGC event he was defending champ x 2. To have the same year by each of these major tournaments is all important and since there are no majors in Thailand I don't think Brock's idea holds water. Actually, that's along the same "out there" line as something you Tiger guys have ripped me on a few times. Too bad he couldn't trade Vijay for the 2000 Masters.
[/quote]

Vijay was doping.

[tstephen]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375581748' post='7599706']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

No, he was calling some of the posters that. Like the ones who still refuse to answer a simple question. Like which specific years Jack was the dominant player for the year.

And don't worry, your position among the posters is secure.
[/quote]

Ok Mr OCD - 1963 to 1977 and it would have been more had he put himself before everything else like Tiger.

[OldGolfer87]

It is hard not to say Tiger ..... but does anyone else find it hard to compare because of different course set up , lengths , equipment , fitness , current lifestyle versus that of 25 even 50 to 60 years ago ..... yes even going back to the Bobby Jones era there was a few players that outclassed all the others and the trend continued with Hogan , Nelson , Snead ....... then Palmer , Nicklaus , Trevino , Floyd , Player and even to the current players of today ... even though Tiger has dominated there was players who challenged him at times .....i would bet that most have a favourite and there is debate who is and who is not the best but i just find it hard to pick one because the variables and such a vast difference in equipment make it next to impossible pick just one ....or can you put Jones , Hogan , Palmer , Snead , Nicklaus and Tiger 's name in a hat and pick one out and it would not be a wrong choice ?

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='OldGolfer87' timestamp='1375583032' post='7599816']
It is hard not to say Tiger ..... but does anyone else find it hard to compare because of different course set up , lengths , equipment , fitness , current lifestyle versus that of 25 even 50 to 60 years ago ..... yes even going back to the Bobby Jones era there was a few players that outclassed all the others and the trend continued with Hogan , Nelson , Snead ....... then Palmer , Nicklaus , Trevino , Floyd , Player and even to the current players of today ... even though Tiger has dominated there was players who challenged him at times .....i would bet that most have a favourite and there is debate who is and who is not the best but i just find it hard to pick one because the variables and such a vast difference in equipment make it next to impossible pick just one ....or can you put Jones , Hogan , Palmer , Snead , Nicklaus and Tiger 's name in a hat and pick one out and it would not be a wrong choice ?
[/quote]

Each one of those guys would be capable of beating the other at any point. Heck, Y.E. Yang beat Tiger and Jack Fleck beat Hogan. Charles Coody beat Nicklaus. Golf is a very fickle game and impossible to master, even for the greatest to ever play.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375582638' post='7599778']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375581748' post='7599706']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

No, he was calling some of the posters that. Like the ones who still refuse to answer a simple question. Like which specific years Jack was the dominant player for the year.

And don't worry, your position among the posters is secure.
[/quote]

Ok Mr OCD - 1963 to 1977 and it would have been more had he put himself before everything else like Tiger.
[/quote]

Really? You claim that in each one of those years Jack was the dominant golfer of that year? That is absurd even for you. I can't believe you are that interested in burnishing your credentials on your place among posters that you would seriously claim this.

But let me ask this: in what sense was Jack the most dominant player in 1969? A year in which he not only won no majors but finished in the top 10 in only one major. A year in which he won only 3 tournaments (Raymond Floyd also won 3 times, but that included the PGA). A year in which he did not win the Vardon (Dave Hill). A year in which he did not win the Player of the Year. A year in which he was not the leading money winner (finished 3rd to the redoubtable Frank Beard and Dave Hill). So on what basis was he even the best player of the year, let alone dominant in any sense of the word?

Then there is 1968. He won twice, again with no majors (and had a MC). Billy Casper won 6 times. He also was the leading money winner and the Vardon trophy. Trevino matched Jack's 2 wins, but one of them was the US Open. Do I really need to go through the litany of all of the other measures by which Jack was NOT the best player of the year? Let alone dominant?

So your claim is absurd, as we both knew it would be when you first started avoiding the question. But by answering the question in such a puerile manner you have demonstrated the veracity of the famous quote from Mark Twain about remaining silent and speaking.

[tstephen]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375581748' post='7599706']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

No, he was calling some of the posters that. Like the ones who still refuse to answer a simple question. Like which specific years Jack was the dominant player for the year.

And don't worry, your position among the posters is secure.
[/quote]

Kareem 6 MVPs and 6 titles
Russell 5 MVPs and 5 more titles than Jordan 5 MVPs
According to tutleback Kareem and Russell are without a doubt greater than Jordan.

[rafer11]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

I said if Tiger got to 19, and people still believed Jack was the greatest they would be idiots. Even you agree with that.

[tstephen]

[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375585455' post='7599990']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

I said if Tiger got to 19, and people still believed Jack was the greatest they would be idiots. Even you agree with that.
[/quote]

I think without a doubt Tiger is greatest when he ties Jack. What was the 50/150 comment about? And if Tiger reaches 100 wins without winning another major(very improbable) that might be enough in any argument to make Tiger the greatest.

[JustTheTips]

There were 8 NBA teams in 1960 compared to the ~30 when jordan played. That makes it 4x harder to win now. Jordan would have had 24 titles (ignore the fact he didn't play that many years) if he was around back then:)

For what it is worth, I would have no problem putting Russell above Jordan but in a lot of ways it is like comparing Tiger to Vardon. The name of the game is the same, but pretty much everything else has changed.

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375585082' post='7599962']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375581748' post='7599706']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

No, he was calling some of the posters that. Like the ones who still refuse to answer a simple question. Like which specific years Jack was the dominant player for the year.

And don't worry, your position among the posters is secure.
[/quote]

Kareem 6 MVPs and 6 titles
Russell 5 MVPs and 5 more titles than Jordan 5 MVPs
According to tutleback Kareem and Russell are without a doubt greater than Jordan.
[/quote]

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375585082' post='7599962']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375581748' post='7599706']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

No, he was calling some of the posters that. Like the ones who still refuse to answer a simple question. Like which specific years Jack was the dominant player for the year.

And don't worry, your position among the posters is secure.
[/quote]

Kareem 6 MVPs and 6 titles
Russell 5 MVPs and 5 more titles than Jordan 5 MVPs
According to tutleback Kareem and Russell are without a doubt greater than Jordan.
[/quote]

What are you raving about? You're the one who would say titles are all that matter. Turtleback would look at the whole career, dominance, scoring average, etc.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375582638' post='7599778']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1375581748' post='7599706']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

No, he was calling some of the posters that. Like the ones who still refuse to answer a simple question. Like which specific years Jack was the dominant player for the year.

And don't worry, your position among the posters is secure.
[/quote]

Ok Mr OCD - 1963 to 1977 and it would have been more had he put himself before everything else like Tiger.
[/quote]

Just to refresh your memory:

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/841196-greatest-male-player-ever/page__st__1470#entry7540116"]http://www.golfwrx.c...70#entry7540116[/url]

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375586054' post='7600032']
[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1375585455' post='7599990']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1375579573' post='7599522']
Also, if anything, the WGC events completely demolish the deeper fields theory watching Tahoe/Reno.

And rafer11 - I think you just called the people responsible for Golfwrx idiots. Keep up the good posting and I guess that means I am no longer the stupidest poster.
[/quote]

I said if Tiger got to 19, and people still believed Jack was the greatest they would be idiots. Even you agree with that.
[/quote]

I think without a doubt Tiger is greatest when he ties Jack. What was the 50/150 comment about? And if Tiger reaches 100 wins without winning another major(very improbable) that might be enough in any argument to make Tiger the greatest.
[/quote]

Under the Hall of Fame's standards, it would make him the greatest. Hall of Fame says that 10 Tour wins is the equivalent of 2 major wins. So if you figure each major is the equivalent of 5 regular Tour wins, then Jack's total is 145 and Tiger's total is 134 right now (135 if he wins tomorrow). If he keeps going at his current pace of 3-5 wins per year over the next 10 years, he is going to cruise past Jack's 145 total.

[redfirebird08]

Actually, I should revise that calculation. Hall of Fame also treats the PLAYERS as equal to the majors, so you would have to treat Jack and Tiger's PLAYERS victories as being the equivalent of 5 regular wins. New calculation:

Jack - 157
Tiger - 142 (probably 143 after tomorrow)