Greatest male player ever

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377807683' post='7767327']
i will go with hank haney's opinion:

[color=#000000][b]GD: Will we see another player like Tiger in our lifetimes?[/b][/color]
[color=#000000]HH: No. The physical, the mental, the ability to make putts in the clutch, his pure talent, his competitiveness, the tools it takes to be great. I don't just view Tiger as the greatest golfer in history, I think he's the greatest athlete who ever lived.[/color]
[/quote]

This is not referencing who the greatest golfer is, because I don't want to get back into that discussion, I don't know that anything else can be said (but it will).

But Haney lost any credibility on this subject when he says Tiger is the greatest athlete who every lived. What a complete joke that is.

[B_of_H]

I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1377865986' post='7770573']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377807683' post='7767327']
i will go with hank haney's opinion:

[color=#000000][b]GD: Will we see another player like Tiger in our lifetimes?[/b][/color]
[color=#000000]HH: No. The physical, the mental, the ability to make putts in the clutch, his pure talent, his competitiveness, the tools it takes to be great. I don't just view Tiger as the greatest golfer in history, I think he's the greatest athlete who ever lived.[/color]
[/quote]

This is not referencing who the greatest golfer is, because I don't want to get back into that discussion, I don't know that anything else can be said (but it will).

But Haney lost any credibility on this subject when he says Tiger is the greatest athlete who every lived. What a complete joke that is.
[/quote]

not really. it has been said by multiple sports reporters. and they don't mean "athlete." they really mean greatest sportsman - jordan, ruth, ali, gretzky, etc.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]

An athlete to me is someone with an abundance of skills and abilities. Tiger as arguably the best golfer ever, absolutely a valid argument. The best ATHLETE ever, not even close. It's been widely acknowledged that he is not skilled outside of golf. You mentioned Bo Jackson, his athletic ability is leaps and bounds above Tigers. Heck, give me Dave Winfield or Dave Logan, guys who were drafted in three sports. Those guys were athletes. Give me a world class decathlete over Tiger as an athlete. As a golfer, Tiger's skillset at the game of golf may well be unparalled, but put him in another athletic venue (even with other golfers like Woodland and Dustin Johnnson) and he is going to come out woefully short.

[jons1]

[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]


I understand what's being said here, but I have to point out something people forget. Yes, you can make the argument that fields are closer bunched because of technology, but let's not forget that technology also helps keep Tiger relevant as well. He's probably the worse driver of the golf ball of someone that has dominated the game in history. Without technology, perhaps his driving would prevent him from being as dominant because of his tee ball.

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1377868586' post='7770779']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]

An athlete to me is someone with an abundance of skills and abilities. Tiger as arguably the best golfer ever, absolutely a valid argument. The best ATHLETE ever, not even close. It's been widely acknowledged that he is not skilled outside of golf. You mentioned Bo Jackson, his athletic ability is leaps and bounds above Tigers. Heck, give me Dave Winfield or Dave Logan, guys who were drafted in three sports. Those guys were athletes. Give me a world class decathlete over Tiger as an athlete. As a golfer, Tiger's skillset at the game of golf may well be unparalled, but put him in another athletic venue (even with other golfers like Woodland and Dustin Johnnson) and he is going to come out woefully short.
[/quote]

again, we are not talking about him being the greatest "athlete" of all time in terms of physical abilities. it is the greatest sportsman of all time. most dominant in his sport, transcendent, etc. ESPN did a poll in 2000 about the greatest athletes of all time. jordan was #1, ruth was #2, ali was #3. nicklaus was in the top 10. now of course no one thinks nicklaus is one of the top "athletes" of all time. but he is one of the top sportsman of all time.

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377868725' post='7770793']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]


I understand what's being said here, but I have to point out something people forget. Yes, you can make the argument that fields are closer bunched because of technology, but let's not forget that technology also helps keep Tiger relevant as well. He's probably the worse driver of the golf ball of someone that has dominated the game in history. Without technology, perhaps his driving would prevent him from being as dominant because of his tee ball.
[/quote]

technology, i believe, has hurt tiger. it has leveled the playing field by allowing inferior ball strikers to compete at the highest level. tiger would LOVE to go back to the old technology. he would be more dominant.

[TheGameChanger]

Here is a question

Tiger or Kelly Slater?

[B_of_H]

I agree that if everyone was playing with steel shafts, balata balls, and wood woods then I think tiger gets a significantly larger advantage even with the deeper pool of talent in modern times.

on a similar note: I think a guy from the past that possibly would have been helped greatly by modern technology is trevino. if he could have hit the ball a little higher with the longer clubs he would have probably won more. that being said there are probably a lot of players in that era you could say similar things about.

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377868870' post='7770807']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1377868586' post='7770779']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]

An athlete to me is someone with an abundance of skills and abilities. Tiger as arguably the best golfer ever, absolutely a valid argument. The best ATHLETE ever, not even close. It's been widely acknowledged that he is not skilled outside of golf. You mentioned Bo Jackson, his athletic ability is leaps and bounds above Tigers. Heck, give me Dave Winfield or Dave Logan, guys who were drafted in three sports. Those guys were athletes. Give me a world class decathlete over Tiger as an athlete. As a golfer, Tiger's skillset at the game of golf may well be unparalled, but put him in another athletic venue (even with other golfers like Woodland and Dustin Johnnson) and he is going to come out woefully short.
[/quote]

again, we are not talking about him being the greatest "athlete" of all time in terms of physical abilities. it is the greatest sportsman of all time. most dominant in his sport, transcendent, etc. ESPN did a poll in 2000 about the greatest athletes of all time. jordan was #1, ruth was #2, ali was #3. nicklaus was in the top 10. now of course no one thinks nicklaus is one of the top "athletes" of all time. but he is one of the top sportsman of all time.
[/quote]

Nicklaus actually was a very good all around athlete. Excelled at basketball & tennis as well as being a good high school sprinter. A better all around athlete than Tiger.

But I do agree with you, it is a tricky question when the term "athlete" is used. When Haney describes him as the "greatest ahtlete" ever, I see it as athlete in the general sense of the term. Maybe he did mean it relative to golf accomplishments, in which case he has a valid argument. It just didn't read that way to me.

[jons1]

[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377869265' post='7770845']
[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377868725' post='7770793']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]


I understand what's being said here, but I have to point out something people forget. Yes, you can make the argument that fields are closer bunched because of technology, but let's not forget that technology also helps keep Tiger relevant as well. He's probably the worse driver of the golf ball of someone that has dominated the game in history. Without technology, perhaps his driving would prevent him from being as dominant because of his tee ball.
[/quote]

technology, i believe, has hurt tiger. it has leveled the playing field by allowing inferior ball strikers to compete at the highest level. tiger would LOVE to go back to the old technology. he would be more dominant.
[/quote]

Tiger would be in the trees all day with old technology. Tiger is an inferior ball striker... he's the worst driver of anyone that's dominated the game.

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377871032' post='7770999']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377869265' post='7770845']
[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377868725' post='7770793']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]


I understand what's being said here, but I have to point out something people forget. Yes, you can make the argument that fields are closer bunched because of technology, but let's not forget that technology also helps keep Tiger relevant as well. He's probably the worse driver of the golf ball of someone that has dominated the game in history. Without technology, perhaps his driving would prevent him from being as dominant because of his tee ball.
[/quote]

technology, i believe, has hurt tiger. it has leveled the playing field by allowing inferior ball strikers to compete at the highest level. tiger would LOVE to go back to the old technology. he would be more dominant.
[/quote]

Tiger would be in the trees all day with old technology. [b]Tiger is an inferior ball striker[/b]... he's the worst driver of anyone that's dominated the game.
[/quote]

you have to be kidding me. here's brandel's take of the 2000 us open:
[color=#000000][size=3]
"As I hit balls, Jack was quiet, but I knew he was watching -- not just my every little detail but everyone else on the range as well. After a good 30 minutes, he said, "Pro, I know you're playing in the national championship. And I know you're playing well. And I know you're occupied with your practice, as you should be, but if you don't stop what you're doing and watch what is going on, you will have missed an opportunity to see up close the single greatest golf swing and exhibition in the history of this game." Behind me, just a few feet away, equally absorbed in what he was doing, stood Tiger Woods.[/size][/color][color=#000000][size=3]
For the next 30 minutes neither Jack nor I spoke as we watched the disciplined fury of swing after swing from Tiger. It wasn't so much that each shot was struck perfectly, or that each traced the same wind-cleaving trajectory, as it was the inescapable physicality and elegance that produced the shots. Every movement was full of purpose, and every shot piled up on one another in an obscene display of talent."[/size][/color]

[B_of_H]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377871032' post='7770999']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377869265' post='7770845']
[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377868725' post='7770793']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]


I understand what's being said here, but I have to point out something people forget. Yes, you can make the argument that fields are closer bunched because of technology, but let's not forget that technology also helps keep Tiger relevant as well. He's probably the worse driver of the golf ball of someone that has dominated the game in history. Without technology, perhaps his driving would prevent him from being as dominant because of his tee ball.
[/quote]

technology, i believe, has hurt tiger. it has leveled the playing field by allowing inferior ball strikers to compete at the highest level. tiger would LOVE to go back to the old technology. he would be more dominant.
[/quote]

Tiger would be in the trees all day with old technology. Tiger is an inferior ball striker... he's the worst driver of anyone that's dominated the game.
[/quote]

no offense but I think you are 100% wrong on this and actually completely backwards.

[jons1]

[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377871253' post='7771029']
[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377871032' post='7770999']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377869265' post='7770845']
[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377868725' post='7770793']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]


I understand what's being said here, but I have to point out something people forget. Yes, you can make the argument that fields are closer bunched because of technology, but let's not forget that technology also helps keep Tiger relevant as well. He's probably the worse driver of the golf ball of someone that has dominated the game in history. Without technology, perhaps his driving would prevent him from being as dominant because of his tee ball.
[/quote]

technology, i believe, has hurt tiger. it has leveled the playing field by allowing inferior ball strikers to compete at the highest level. tiger would LOVE to go back to the old technology. he would be more dominant.
[/quote]

Tiger would be in the trees all day with old technology. [b]Tiger is an inferior ball striker[/b]... he's the worst driver of anyone that's dominated the game.
[/quote]

you have to be kidding me. here's brandel's take of the 2000 us open:

[color=#000000][size=3]"As I hit balls, Jack was quiet, but I knew he was watching -- not just my every little detail but everyone else on the range as well. After a good 30 minutes, he said, "Pro, I know you're playing in the national championship. And I know you're playing well. And I know you're occupied with your practice, as you should be, but if you don't stop what you're doing and watch what is going on, you will have missed an opportunity to see up close the single greatest golf swing and exhibition in the history of this game." Behind me, just a few feet away, equally absorbed in what he was doing, stood Tiger Woods.[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3]For the next 30 minutes neither Jack nor I spoke as we watched the disciplined fury of swing after swing from Tiger. It wasn't so much that each shot was struck perfectly, or that each traced the same wind-cleaving trajectory, as it was the inescapable physicality and elegance that produced the shots. Every movement was full of purpose, and every shot piled up on one another in an obscene display of talent."[/size][/color]
[/quote]


Tigers ball striking doesn't live in a 2000 bubble. No one has dominated the game of golf to the degree Tiger Woods has with the level of inconsistency he's had from the tee box when examining his golf from age 16 to today. He's dominated at every level, and at every level he's struggled minus a few years. As a whole he's a horrible driver of the golf ball, by the mans own admission. If he was playing a 175cc wood headed driver, we'd never see the kind of career he's had. Modern technology allows someone like Tiger Woods to be dominate at this sport. If you're talking iron play, I agree, short game, amazing, but if you're unplayable/OB/tree bound 40% of the time, you've got an issue (which is what would have happened with older technology). Make no mistake, technology has helped Tiger Woods just as much as the fields.

[B_of_H]

IMO it's easier to hit it accurately with the old technology. basic geometry for starters. great players can hit any type of club solid. the longer the shaft and the farther the ball goes the harder it is to hit accurately though. we've seen this with all players across the board. as the ball has gone father the best players are less accurate with their drivers.

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377872455' post='7771167']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377871253' post='7771029']
[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377871032' post='7770999']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377869265' post='7770845']
[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377868725' post='7770793']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]


I understand what's being said here, but I have to point out something people forget. Yes, you can make the argument that fields are closer bunched because of technology, but let's not forget that technology also helps keep Tiger relevant as well. He's probably the worse driver of the golf ball of someone that has dominated the game in history. Without technology, perhaps his driving would prevent him from being as dominant because of his tee ball.
[/quote]

technology, i believe, has hurt tiger. it has leveled the playing field by allowing inferior ball strikers to compete at the highest level. tiger would LOVE to go back to the old technology. he would be more dominant.
[/quote]

Tiger would be in the trees all day with old technology. [b]Tiger is an inferior ball striker[/b]... he's the worst driver of anyone that's dominated the game.
[/quote]

you have to be kidding me. here's brandel's take of the 2000 us open:

[color=#000000][size=3]"As I hit balls, Jack was quiet, but I knew he was watching -- not just my every little detail but everyone else on the range as well. After a good 30 minutes, he said, "Pro, I know you're playing in the national championship. And I know you're playing well. And I know you're occupied with your practice, as you should be, but if you don't stop what you're doing and watch what is going on, you will have missed an opportunity to see up close the single greatest golf swing and exhibition in the history of this game." Behind me, just a few feet away, equally absorbed in what he was doing, stood Tiger Woods.[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3]For the next 30 minutes neither Jack nor I spoke as we watched the disciplined fury of swing after swing from Tiger. It wasn't so much that each shot was struck perfectly, or that each traced the same wind-cleaving trajectory, as it was the inescapable physicality and elegance that produced the shots. Every movement was full of purpose, and every shot piled up on one another in an obscene display of talent."[/size][/color]
[/quote]


Tigers ball striking doesn't live in a 2000 bubble. No one has dominated the game of golf to the degree Tiger Woods has with the level of inconsistency he's had from the tee box when examining his golf from age 16 to today. He's dominated at every level, and at every level he's struggled minus a few years. As a whole he's a horrible driver of the golf ball, by the mans own admission.[b] If he was playing a 175cc wood headed driver, we'd never see the kind of career he's had.[/b] Modern technology allows someone like Tiger Woods to be dominate at this sport. If you're talking iron play, I agree, short game, amazing, but if you're unplayable/OB/tree bound 40% of the time, you've got an issue (which is what would have happened with older technology). Make no mistake, technology has helped Tiger Woods just as much as the fields.
[/quote]

you do realize he dominated every level of golf going back to when he was 3. that means he played all kinds of equipment and always dominated. tiger would dominate any era with any equipment.

[tstephen]

I was dominant in football and golf when I was 10.

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1377880067' post='7772033']
I was dominant in football and golf when I was 10.
[/quote]

best 10 year old in the world? wow. impressive. what happened?

[JustTheTips]

Your right we wouldn't have seen a career like the one Tiger has had. You would have seen a much better one. Tiger was crushing the fields in 1997 with a a 43" steel shaft and ~200 cc driver in the preProv1 era. Technology like the short hitters and poor ball strikers stick around. Who do you think would be hurt by requiring blades on tour? Guys like Tiger who are playing them or guys or the 2/3s of the tour who are playing GI clubs like the AP2? Equipment is a total nonissue. Everyone playing on tour has the same access to equipment. Equipment changes the game. It doesn't give you advantageous over your opposition.

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377872455' post='7771167']
If he was playing a 175cc wood headed driver, we'd never see the kind of career he's had.
[/quote]

[turtleback]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377868725' post='7770793']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]


I understand what's being said here, but I have to point out something people forget. Yes, you can make the argument that fields are closer bunched because of technology, but let's not forget that technology also helps keep Tiger relevant as well. He's probably the worse driver of the golf ball of someone that has dominated the game in history. Without technology, perhaps his driving would prevent him from being as dominant because of his tee ball.
[/quote]

Huh? In his early years before the technology revolution really got going he was one of the last to be playing with the "old" technology and he was absolutely dominant. Anyone besides me remember when Phil said that the amazing thing was that Tiger was dominating with substandard equipment?

[rustyputterguy]

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
I would actually quote that and attach it to some posts as replies, but there are too many to choose from.
This is the greatest 64 page troll thread I've seen though, well played tstephen.

[tstephen]

Thanks - it!s entertainment at its best. I did want to throw some more kindling into the fire:

Tiger at 33 no major
Tiger at 34 no major
Tiger at 35 no major
Tiger at 36 no major
Tiger at 37 no major

All this by someone that has been dominant at every age!

[nochct1]

[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377872455' post='7771167']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377871253' post='7771029']
[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377871032' post='7770999']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377869265' post='7770845']
[quote name='golfpros1' timestamp='1377868725' post='7770793']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]


I understand what's being said here, but I have to point out something people forget. Yes, you can make the argument that fields are closer bunched because of technology, but let's not forget that technology also helps keep Tiger relevant as well. He's probably the worse driver of the golf ball of someone that has dominated the game in history. Without technology, perhaps his driving would prevent him from being as dominant because of his tee ball.
[/quote]

technology, i believe, has hurt tiger. it has leveled the playing field by allowing inferior ball strikers to compete at the highest level. tiger would LOVE to go back to the old technology. he would be more dominant.
[/quote]

Tiger would be in the trees all day with old technology. [b]Tiger is an inferior ball striker[/b]... he's the worst driver of anyone that's dominated the game.
[/quote]

you have to be kidding me. here's brandel's take of the 2000 us open:

[color=#000000][size=3]"As I hit balls, Jack was quiet, but I knew he was watching -- not just my every little detail but everyone else on the range as well. After a good 30 minutes, he said, "Pro, I know you're playing in the national championship. And I know you're playing well. And I know you're occupied with your practice, as you should be, but if you don't stop what you're doing and watch what is going on, you will have missed an opportunity to see up close the single greatest golf swing and exhibition in the history of this game." Behind me, just a few feet away, equally absorbed in what he was doing, stood Tiger Woods.[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=3]For the next 30 minutes neither Jack nor I spoke as we watched the disciplined fury of swing after swing from Tiger. It wasn't so much that each shot was struck perfectly, or that each traced the same wind-cleaving trajectory, as it was the inescapable physicality and elegance that produced the shots. Every movement was full of purpose, and every shot piled up on one another in an obscene display of talent."[/size][/color]
[/quote]


Tigers ball striking doesn't live in a 2000 bubble. No one has dominated the game of golf to the degree Tiger Woods has with the level of inconsistency he's had from the tee box when examining his golf from age 16 to today. He's dominated at every level, and at every level he's struggled minus a few years. As a whole he's a horrible driver of the golf ball, by the mans own admission. If he was playing a 175cc wood headed driver, we'd never see the kind of career he's had. Modern technology allows someone like Tiger Woods to be dominate at this sport. If you're talking iron play, I agree, short game, amazing, but if you're unplayable/OB/tree bound 40% of the time, you've got an issue (which is what would have happened with older technology). Make no mistake, technology has helped Tiger Woods just as much as the fields.
[/quote]

Did you miss the 3 jr Amateurs and then the 3 us amateur wins? That wasn't done w 460 cc drivers. And the fact that he grew up w old equipment and dominated with that? I know it wasn't the same clubs that bobby jones used, but tiger is NOT a product of technology.

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1377901641' post='7774005']
Thanks - it!s entertainment at its best. I did want to throw some more kindling into the fire:

Tiger at 33 no major
Tiger at 34 no major
Tiger at 35 no major
Tiger at 36 no major
Tiger at 37 no major

All this by someone that has been dominant at every age!
[/quote]

Who said this??

[TheGameChanger]

I wonder how Tiger would go now if he put a Steel Shaft in his driver? Probably already tried it on the range this year.

[dlygrisse]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1377870506' post='7770939']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377868870' post='7770807']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1377868586' post='7770779']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]

An athlete to me is someone with an abundance of skills and abilities. Tiger as arguably the best golfer ever, absolutely a valid argument. The best ATHLETE ever, not even close. It's been widely acknowledged that he is not skilled outside of golf. You mentioned Bo Jackson, his athletic ability is leaps and bounds above Tigers. Heck, give me Dave Winfield or Dave Logan, guys who were drafted in three sports. Those guys were athletes. Give me a world class decathlete over Tiger as an athlete. As a golfer, Tiger's skillset at the game of golf may well be unparalled, but put him in another athletic venue (even with other golfers like Woodland and Dustin Johnnson) and he is going to come out woefully short.
[/quote]

again, we are not talking about him being the greatest "athlete" of all time in terms of physical abilities. it is the greatest sportsman of all time. most dominant in his sport, transcendent, etc. ESPN did a poll in 2000 about the greatest athletes of all time. jordan was #1, ruth was #2, ali was #3. nicklaus was in the top 10. now of course no one thinks nicklaus is one of the top "athletes" of all time. but he is one of the top sportsman of all time.
[/quote]

Nicklaus actually was a very good all around athlete. Excelled at basketball & tennis as well as being a good high school sprinter. A better all around athlete than Tiger.

But I do agree with you, it is a tricky question when the term "athlete" is used. When Haney describes him as the "greatest ahtlete" ever, I see it as athlete in the general sense of the term. Maybe he did mean it relative to golf accomplishments, in which case he has a valid argument. It just didn't read that way to me.
[/quote]I believe Jack was the QB on his high school football team, one of it's best basketball players, and is a very good tennis player. He was offered a football scholarship to Ohio State as a kicker. Jack was a very good all around athlete. I hear Tiger was good on a skateboard.

[lsugolf1105]

[quote name='dlygrisse' timestamp='1377909884' post='7774625']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1377870506' post='7770939']
[quote name='lsugolf1105' timestamp='1377868870' post='7770807']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1377868586' post='7770779']
[quote name='B_of_H' timestamp='1377867220' post='7770663']
I personally agree with Haney. I think tiger is arguably the best athlete we've seen in any given sport in history. He has/had it all. Tiger is just more of a complete player than anyone we've ever seen and he's done it under the most pressure and against far better competition than anyone in golf we've ever seen. Tiger winning 15 majors to me is like Jack winning 30 or hogan winning 40 etc... The odds of winning that many against such deep and talented fields, fields that benefit from technology that lets lesser players be more competitive, in a game of bad bounces, different courses, wind conditions, etc... hard to fathom.

I would say that LeBron is neck and neck with bo jackson for the most impressive physical athlete but tiger's skills at his given sport and ability to produce under pressure are right up there with Jordan....and tiger is right near the top as far as his physical abilities as well.

Just my opinion.
[/quote]

An athlete to me is someone with an abundance of skills and abilities. Tiger as arguably the best golfer ever, absolutely a valid argument. The best ATHLETE ever, not even close. It's been widely acknowledged that he is not skilled outside of golf. You mentioned Bo Jackson, his athletic ability is leaps and bounds above Tigers. Heck, give me Dave Winfield or Dave Logan, guys who were drafted in three sports. Those guys were athletes. Give me a world class decathlete over Tiger as an athlete. As a golfer, Tiger's skillset at the game of golf may well be unparalled, but put him in another athletic venue (even with other golfers like Woodland and Dustin Johnnson) and he is going to come out woefully short.
[/quote]

again, we are not talking about him being the greatest "athlete" of all time in terms of physical abilities. it is the greatest sportsman of all time. most dominant in his sport, transcendent, etc. ESPN did a poll in 2000 about the greatest athletes of all time. jordan was #1, ruth was #2, ali was #3. nicklaus was in the top 10. now of course no one thinks nicklaus is one of the top "athletes" of all time. but he is one of the top sportsman of all time.
[/quote]

Nicklaus actually was a very good all around athlete. Excelled at basketball & tennis as well as being a good high school sprinter. A better all around athlete than Tiger.

But I do agree with you, it is a tricky question when the term "athlete" is used. When Haney describes him as the "greatest ahtlete" ever, I see it as athlete in the general sense of the term. Maybe he did mean it relative to golf accomplishments, in which case he has a valid argument. It just didn't read that way to me.
[/quote]I believe Jack was the QB on his high school football team, one of it's best basketball players, and is a very good tennis player. He was offered a football scholarship to Ohio State as a kicker. Jack was a very good all around athlete. I hear Tiger was good on a skateboard.
[/quote]

And still no one has ever considered jack the greatest athlete of all time. Sucks for him. Should have practiced his skateboarding.

[turtleback]

[quote name='rustyputterguy' timestamp='1377895620' post='7773541']
This is the greatest 64 page troll thread I've seen though, well played tstephen.
[/quote]

And all it cost him was any shred of credibility or respect he might have gotten on these boards.

[tstephen]

This argument is all about championships like any other sport. MAJOR CHAMPIONSHIPS are called that for a reason. Jack not only has Tiger beat for good in major wins but his dominant performance(2nds, 3rds, top 5s, top 10s) will also no way be matched by Tont.

[tstephen]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1377946675' post='7776129']
[quote name='rustyputterguy' timestamp='1377895620' post='7773541']
This is the greatest 64 page troll thread I've seen though, well played tstephen.
[/quote]

And all it cost him was any shred of credibility or respect he might have gotten on these boards.
[/quote]

BUMMER - I was shooting for a Pulitzer.