Greatest male player ever

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1377957734' post='7776535']
[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.
[/quote]

And got your foot instead.

[tstephen]

Ooch - you Tiger guys are poor losers just like your idol.

[tstephen]

Is Sean Foley golf's greatest nerd?

[nochct1]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1377969573' post='7777383']
Ooch - you Tiger guys are poor losers just like your idol.
[/quote]

And you're the winner who keeps posting about someone that you despise. Kind of sad and pathetic isn't it?

[tstephen]

Hey, I think a lot more of Sergio. Tiger's such a baby, he hasn't buried the hatchet with the Sergio incident.

I did still like Tiger a little at the start of year.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1378057346' post='7781671']
Hey, I think a lot more of Sergio. Tiger's such a baby, he hasn't buried the hatchet with the Sergio incident.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Obsession-Women-Parfume-Calvin-Klein/dp/B000PY55JW"]http://www.amazon.com/Obsession-Women-Parfume-Calvin-Klein/dp/B000PY55JW[/url]

[bscinstnct]

What do some pros think,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtUjBHFM7uQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[tstephen]

8 more majors without a win when he hits 40 and then go back and ask same question to same group. O'Meara was Tiger's mentor so he is dq'd anyway. Those guys sure stumble on the question and technology issue.

[tstephen]

Yeah, Brandel Chamblee talking about great driving with DRIVERS. How can Phil or Tiger go down as greatest when neither can hit the shot that gets it all going? Not to mention the long drive that carries trouble and into a great position for birdie or eagle. PGA tour courses should always reward good and long driving!

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1378136053' post='7785641']
How can Phil or Tiger go down as greatest when neither can hit the shot that gets it all going? Not to mention the long drive that carries trouble and into a great position for birdie or eagle. PGA tour courses should always reward good and long driving!
[/quote]

For once, I agree with you. It's pretty hard to hit a drive 300 yards, so it should be rewarded. Instead, the trend since Tiger came along has been to penalize long drives. Many courses have the fairway get narrower at 300, or put bunkers at around 300 that stick out into the fairway and make the target smaller. No wonder most of the power guys hit less than driver on most holes. The few gunslingers who don't, like Rory, have a great week when their drives barely miss the junk, and have bad weeks when they don't. Watch Rory's epic PGA win, and look how many times he cleared an unplayable lie by just a yard or two. More power to him, he gambled and won that week, but he had 4 MCs that year, too. The odds always catch up with you.

If Tiger ever wants to match Trevino's stats hitting fairways at 250-260, he can just hit his two iron stinger all day. But on modern courses, that would leave him with a 200 yard approach on most holes. He would destroy the courses of the Jack era, even using the old clubs and balls --- as he proved at the 1997 Masters, where they immediately lengthened and narrowed the fairways.

I still don't understand why anyone should care how Tiger plays now, rather than in his prime (and I understand that guys with a very short peak, like Duval or Miller, aren't in the discussion, but Tiger had a 14-year prime), but since you insist, Tiger is in his 18th pro season now, so obviously he's not as good as he was in 2000, or even 2008. Nobody else has ever been that good, either. But he's still number one in the world by five points, with five wins, and leading in scoring average, earnings, etc. In Jack's 18th season on tour, he had zero wins (and zero of the all-important 2nd place finishes as well), was 71st in earnings, and was well over two shots a round off the leading scoring average.

LOL, not even Mark McCormack had the nerve to rank him #1. But he still somehow ranked him #2.

[tstephen]

I wonder if Tiger's back problem is affecting his putting. I noticed he had a slight recoil on some strokes today. Jack is the greatest drive for show, putt for dough in golf with Trevino maybe number 2.

[tstephen]

So Tiger has 14 wins now without a major.

26 Modern era players(1st tour win 1960-present) with more than 14 wins or more and no major = 0.
Bruce Crampton(4 2nds to Jack in majors) and Kenny Perry(2 play-off losses in majors) have 14 wins and no majors.

9 classic era players have more wins and no majors with Harry Cooper 31 and MacDonald Smith 24 leading the way.
Looks like it was harder in the classic era to win a major to me.

I conclude that Tiger's 14 wins and no majors are a result of his wins on "courses for horses" and to me if he is going to have a chance to catch Jack at 18 he is going to need to change his schedule. He should try winning at Riviera and other courses that have given him some difficulty in the past.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1378603811' post='7813699']
9 classic era players have more wins and no majors with Harry Cooper 31 and MacDonald Smith 24 leading the way.
Looks like it was harder in the classic era to win a major to me. [/quote]

Brilliant deduction. Both hit their prime long before the Masters was founded. Cooper never played the Open. Smith never played the PGA.

It was MUCH harder to win a WGC in the classic era. Bobby Jones didn't win a single one.

[Full Melt]

Tiger in his prime vs Jack in his prime? Not even a question, it's Tiger.

If Tiger played in the 60's and 70's he would have been the best. If Jack played nowadays he'd be good but not dominant like Tiger. Technology in the last 10-15 years has really made the tour much more competitive and Tiger still found a way to dominate.

The winning percentages aren't even close....

"Second place sucks" - Tiger Woods

[tstephen]

Players had to hit drivers more in Jack's era. Tiger and Phil would have had much less success against Jack, Tom, & Lee. Tiger has recently hit pop-ups with his 3 wood off the tee. I can't even imagine him with a persimmon under the pressure of a major championship.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1378608034' post='7814009']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1378603811' post='7813699']
9 classic era players have more wins and no majors with Harry Cooper 31 and MacDonald Smith 24 leading the way.
Looks like it was harder in the classic era to win a major to me. [/quote]

Brilliant deduction. Both hit their prime long before the Masters was founded. Cooper never played the Open. Smith never played the PGA.

It was MUCH harder to win a WGC in the classic era. Bobby Jones didn't win a single one.
[/quote]

MacDonald Smith 12 top 5's in majors
Harry Cooper 11 top 5's in majors

You forgot to mention Hogan, Jack, Vardon, Tom, Lee, Sam, Walter, Seve, Byron, Arnie, Gary, Gene, Billy when mentioning WGCs.

[bscinstnct]

It is clear that

Tiger Woods is

The worst male player ever.

[JustTheTips]

That is because they were a bunch of short hitters and needed the yards. Seriously watch those old tournaments and see the guys hit the ball 260 yards and be happy. The drivers back then are the same as hitting a 3 wood today. Given how tiger hit the 43" steel shafted 200 or so cc driver in 1997, I think he might have done ok. Some of the younger guys I am not so sure about. But some of the old guys would have had the same problem adapting to the modern game.

The modern player is never going to appear as legendary as the old guys. With every pretty much every shot being recorded, everyone is going to have a collection of youtube shanks, tops, and fats which make it hard to compare to guys like Jack and Arnie who only showed up on film during their best days when they were in contention and even then not everything was recorded.



[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1378610039' post='7814159']
Players had to hit drivers more in Jack's era. Tiger and Phil would have had much less success against Jack, Tom, & Lee. Tiger has recently hit pop-ups with his 3 wood off the tee. I can't even imagine him with a persimmon under the pressure of a major championship.
[/quote]

[tstephen]

Jack flew a driver 340 at sea level in 1965 no wind and was in the Guiness Book of World Records until the titanium era.

[bscinstnct]

Jack once hit a ball to Quetzelcoatl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYI0bPnvzOY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[tstephen]

Thought you might put something ridiculous after once again realizing golfers are less talented today.

[JustTheTips]

340 wouldn't even make the top 1000 of drives in 2012. It is like talking about Gary Woodlans 450 yard bombs. They happen but their real number is significantly less. Again the point wasn't that the old guys weren't talented. They weren't hitting the ball very far. When you are generating less clubhead speed AND ball speed it is easier to control the clubhead and you mishits are not punished as much. Basic physcis.


[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1378615192' post='7814405']
Jack flew a driver 340 at sea level in 1965 no wind and was in the Guiness Book of World Records until the titanium era.
[/quote]

[mr smith]

I think there is little doubt that the previous generation were far better ball strikers and shot makers, but this can be attributed to advances in technology. Persimmon drivers and wound balls provided precise feed back which allowed players to hone their skills to a level not required today. Back in the old days you simply wouldnt make the tour if you werent a great ball striker. Modern equipment, especially balls, has made the long game far easier and more predictable. These days its point and shoot and the ball will fly straight and spin the same way on landing every time. In the past a players skill had more effect on how the ball behaved through the air and upon landing on the green. Now the fields are pretty much equal from tee to green, and it becomes a short game contest. I think its no coincidence that the last 2 great ball strikers and shot makers on tour, Tiger and Phil, cut their teeth with the old equipment and learnt the game when it required more skill in the long game. No player under 35 would have ever used a persimmon driver or wound ball. When you see the senior tour guys hitting it further and straighter than in their prime, there can be no doubt that modern balls and drivers have taken ball striking out of the equation as a required skill.

[JustTheTips]

I think there is about zero evidence that people were better ball strikers in the 60s and 70s. The modern fields are not remotely close to even tee to green. If that was true Luke Donald would be winning more than Tiger and Phil, and Lee Westwood would be parking carts at your local club. If you look at the stats, the long game is about as valuable as the short game and putting put together for the top guys.

And for what is worth, if GI and hybrid clubs were available in the 60s, you can bet that a ton of PGA pros would have been using them. A ton of the guys had problems hitting the ball high with long irons and could have narrowed the gap with Jack if they would have had the option.

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1378687583' post='7817345']
I think there is little doubt that the previous generation were far better ball strikers and shot makers, but this can be attributed to advances in technology. Persimmon drivers and wound balls provided precise feed back which allowed players to hone their skills to a level not required today. Back in the old days you simply wouldnt make the tour if you werent a great ball striker. Modern equipment, especially balls, has made the long game far easier and more predictable. These days its point and shoot and the ball will fly straight and spin the same way on landing every time. In the past a players skill had more effect on how the ball behaved through the air and upon landing on the green. Now the fields are pretty much equal from tee to green, and it becomes a short game contest. I think its no coincidence that the last 2 great ball strikers and shot makers on tour, Tiger and Phil, cut their teeth with the old equipment and learnt the game when it required more skill in the long game. No player under 35 would have ever used a persimmon driver or wound ball. When you see the senior tour guys hitting it further and straighter than in their prime, there can be no doubt that modern balls and drivers have taken ball striking out of the equation as a required skill.
[/quote]

[mr smith]

[quote name='JustTheTips' timestamp='1378696683' post='7818009']
I think there is about zero evidence that people were better ball strikers in the 60s and 70s. The modern fields are not remotely close to even tee to green. If that was true Luke Donald would be winning more than Tiger and Phil, and Lee Westwood would be parking carts at your local club. If you look at the stats, the long game is about as valuable as the short game and putting put together for the top guys.

And for what is worth, if GI and hybrid clubs were available in the 60s, you can bet that a ton of PGA pros would have been using them. A ton of the guys had problems hitting the ball high with long irons and could have narrowed the gap with Jack if they would have had the option.

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1378687583' post='7817345']
I think there is little doubt that the previous generation were far better ball strikers and shot makers, but this can be attributed to advances in technology. Persimmon drivers and wound balls provided precise feed back which allowed players to hone their skills to a level not required today. Back in the old days you simply wouldnt make the tour if you werent a great ball striker. Modern equipment, especially balls, has made the long game far easier and more predictable. These days its point and shoot and the ball will fly straight and spin the same way on landing every time. In the past a players skill had more effect on how the ball behaved through the air and upon landing on the green. Now the fields are pretty much equal from tee to green, and it becomes a short game contest. I think its no coincidence that the last 2 great ball strikers and shot makers on tour, Tiger and Phil, cut their teeth with the old equipment and learnt the game when it required more skill in the long game. No player under 35 would have ever used a persimmon driver or wound ball. When you see the senior tour guys hitting it further and straighter than in their prime, there can be no doubt that modern balls and drivers have taken ball striking out of the equation as a required skill.
[/quote]
[/quote]
My main point was that you needed much better ball striking back then to keep a wound ball in play when hitting a tiny headed persimmon driver. Guys these days dont need to learn that level of ball striking ability to compete, just how to chip and putt. Im old enough to remember the long game being hugely important, and when the few truly great ball strikers ruled the course. I honestly believe pros can win tournaments and majors now being a mediocre ball striker, but putting lights out. Back in the day you simply couldnt contend unless you had a great ball striking week.
I can recall an Open championship a few years back when a 50 something Norman put on a ball striking clinic for 3 days and embarrassed the entire field with his control. And that was with modern equipment. You can even see it in modern swings. The modern handsy, flippy swipe at the ball is the reason most pros still have trouble finding fairways. Those swings are ridiculously reliant on timing, which explains the inconsistency from one week to the next. Modern swings wouldnt have made it to any tours back in the 70s.

[bwrichmond]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1378603811' post='7813699']
So Tiger has 14 wins now without a major.

26 Modern era players(1st tour win 1960-present) with more than 14 wins or more and no major = 0.
Bruce Crampton(4 2nds to Jack in majors) and Kenny Perry(2 play-off losses in majors) have 14 wins and no majors.

9 classic era players have more wins and no majors with Harry Cooper 31 and MacDonald Smith 24 leading the way.
Looks like it was harder in the classic era to win a major to me.

[b]I conclude that Tiger's 14 wins and no majors are a result of his wins on "courses for horses" and to me if he is going to have a chance to catch Jack at 18 he is going to need to change his schedule. He should try winning at Riviera and other courses that have given him some difficulty in the past.[/b]
[/quote]

Based on your witchcraft Jack-biased deductive reasoning?

New rule: You're not allowed to post back-to-back. Stop trolling and bringing this thread back.

[JustTheTips]

Not really. To hit a persimmon driver 290 and keep in play yeah you needed a monster swing. To hit it 240 and keep on playing,not so much. You might think some of the guys on the PGA tour are mediocre ball strikers today but guess what? Those guys existed in the 60s also. They were just down in the 100+ in the rankings and since golf wasn't on 24/7 you didn't see them very often. The long game is still about 2x as important as putting and the short game. The difference between the best and worst putters is 1.5 strokes. The best and worst in the long game is about 3 strokes. To stay on tour is hard if you really suck (i.e. Boo Weeklys putting) in one category but if your merely average you can be #1 in the world (Vijay or Luke Donald) if the rest of you game is top 5 in the world.


As far as the modern swing being handys, your looking at different swings than I am. The current swings may not have made it on tour in the 70s but most of those 70s swings wouldn't make it on tour today. Swings adapt to changes in the game. You don't swing a 460 cc titatinum driver the same way you swing some hickory shafted club. The game changes. You can lament if that is good or bad.

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1378709184' post='7818381']


My main point was that you needed much better ball striking back then to keep a wound ball in play when hitting a tiny headed persimmon driver. Guys these days dont need to learn that level of ball striking ability to compete, just how to chip and putt. Im old enough to remember the long game being hugely important, and when the few truly great ball strikers ruled the course. I honestly believe pros can win tournaments and majors now being a mediocre ball striker, but putting lights out. Back in the day you simply couldnt contend unless you had a great ball striking week.
I can recall an Open championship a few years back when a 50 something Norman put on a ball striking clinic for 3 days and embarrassed the entire field with his control. And that was with modern equipment. You can even see it in modern swings. The modern handsy, flippy swipe at the ball is the reason most pros still have trouble finding fairways. Those swings are ridiculously reliant on timing, which explains the inconsistency from one week to the next. Modern swings wouldnt have made it to any tours back in the 70s.
[/quote]

[tgss]

[quote name='rhh7' timestamp='1374881517' post='7546780']
I will soon be 67 years old. Ben Hogan was my boyhood idol. You might expect me to favor the older champions. But listen, seriously, here is just my simple opinion. I played competitive tennis singles for 40 years, I was just as nuts about tennis as I was about golf. Honestly, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal would make mincemeat of all of the great tennis champions of the past. Don Budge, Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzales, Arthur Ashe, Jimmy Connors, and my favorite, John McEnroe...none of these guys could stand on the court against the modern champions. McEnroe was an artist with a wooden racket, but he was never tall enough or strong enough, the game passed him by. The same would be true of Hogan and Nicklaus if we could transport them at their prime into the present. Just an opinion, from an old guy. And if you disagree, you can still be my friend!
[/quote]


Very insightful post and observation !!!!

[tgss]

[quote name='JustTheTips' timestamp='1378734056' post='7818991']
Not really. To hit a persimmon driver 290 and keep in play yeah you needed a monster swing. To hit it 240 and keep on playing,not so much. You might think some of the guys on the PGA tour are mediocre ball strikers today but guess what? Those guys existed in the 60s also. They were just down in the 100+ in the rankings and since golf wasn't on 24/7 you didn't see them very often. The long game is still about 2x as important as putting and the short game. The difference between the best and worst putters is 1.5 strokes. The best and worst in the long game is about 3 strokes. To stay on tour is hard if you really suck (i.e. Boo Weeklys putting) in one category but if your merely average you can be #1 in the world (Vijay or Luke Donald) if the rest of you game is top 5 in the world.


As far as the modern swing being handys, your looking at different swings than I am. The current swings may not have made it on tour in the 70s but most of those 70s swings wouldn't make it on tour today. Swings adapt to changes in the game. You don't swing a 460 cc titatinum driver the same way you swing some hickory shafted club. The game changes. You can lament if that is good or bad.

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1378709184' post='7818381']
My main point was that you needed much better ball striking back then to keep a wound ball in play when hitting a tiny headed persimmon driver. Guys these days dont need to learn that level of ball striking ability to compete, just how to chip and putt. Im old enough to remember the long game being hugely important, and when the few truly great ball strikers ruled the course. I honestly believe pros can win tournaments and majors now being a mediocre ball striker, but putting lights out. Back in the day you simply couldnt contend unless you had a great ball striking week.
I can recall an Open championship a few years back when a 50 something Norman put on a ball striking clinic for 3 days and embarrassed the entire field with his control. And that was with modern equipment. You can even see it in modern swings. The modern handsy, flippy swipe at the ball is the reason most pros still have trouble finding fairways. Those swings are ridiculously reliant on timing, which explains the inconsistency from one week to the next. Modern swings wouldnt have made it to any tours back in the 70s.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Good point yet I think that the modern swing is becoming less handsy /armsy...look at Dufner, Zach Johnson, Hunter Mahan and even Tiger who is trying to drill his swing down to as few moving parts as possible. Phil and Bubba Watson are the antithesis of the aforementioned swings and you can make a lot of conclusions as to the results.

[tstephen]

[quote name='JustTheTips' timestamp='1378661824' post='7815799']
340 wouldn't even make the top 1000 of drives in 2012. It is like talking about Gary Woodlans 450 yard bombs. They happen but their real number is significantly less. Again the point wasn't that the old guys weren't talented. They weren't hitting the ball very far. When you are generating less clubhead speed AND ball speed it is easier to control the clubhead and you mishits are not punished as much. Basic physcis.


[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1378615192' post='7814405']
Jack flew a driver 340 at sea level in 1965 no wind and was in the Guiness Book of World Records until the titanium era.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I thought you knew something about golf. Gary Woodland is the 1st and maybe only tour player to officially crack the 200 mph ball speed. That may not result in a 340 yard carry at sea level without wind like Jack did in the early 60's. There are too many golfers that say they hit it 300 and forget about the high elevation down hill wind-aided firm fairway roll. Jack really did hit it as hard and long as Woodland back in the persimmon days when he wanted. Even later in his career at 43 I personally saw Jack hit just 1 really hard drive at the end of the past champions clinic during the 1983 PGA that might have won the National Long Drive Championship(Remax of the day) that immediately followed at Riviera CC. Even though those guys were going all out on 6 drives, it took only 1 by Jack late in his career to be competitive with the longest golf had to offer. THAT IS TRUE TALENT!