Greatest male player ever

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379611011' post='7878073']
No, it's pretty clear. Jack and Tiger both say NOW that majors are all that counts.

What Jack detractors are saying is that Jack used to say that total wins counts, until he realized he couldn't match Snead's total wins. IIRC, Jack even attempted to add his Senior majors to his total. That's what they are talking about with Jack changing his criteria.

What I (and others) are saying on this page is that what Tiger and Jack think defines the best is relevant, but not the end all, be-all of defining greatness in a golfer. Using other criteria (such as money titles, number of titles, etc.) as well as intangibles such as peak, longevity, and consistency leads me to believe that Tiger's career > Jack's career, regardless of what Tiger or Jack thinks. This is my opinion only (and those who agree with me). After all, if majors are all that counted, why would Tiger even bother playing other tournaments? He'd play 4 majors a year and practice the rest of the year. The fact that he doesn't do that means that other tournaments must mean something to Tiger, even if he won't admit it.
[/quote]

Once again, Jack has aways maintained majors were the most important there was no change, you are wrong as have been the few others who have made that one up. And, Tiger has always had the same mindset. It's not something that just happened "now".

Consider any criteria you think are relevant.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379631238' post='7879813']
1977 British Open loss to Watson. Jack same age as Tiger now. Please, give me a break. Tiger will never have anyone not named Bob May perform like that against him and if he did lose a battle like that one would he even show 1/1,000,000 the class Jack demonstrated? Seve showed as much class in the '86 Masters.
[/quote]

I'll give you that. Jack was a much better loser than Tiger.

[tstephen]

No, Jack was a much greater winner! In every sense of the word.

[SurfinTurf]

I would like to rejoin the conversation if someone could just summarize the last 60 or so pages for me.

Thanks in advance.

[mr smith]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379644437' post='7881079']


"There were only 56 touring pros in the starting field of 168 players at San Antonio. One day a writer asked me about this ratio, and I said, 'It's absurd and unfortunate.' Only a third of the players at the PGA were regular tour competitors—or, in other words, the best players in the world. " --- Jack Nicklaus, commenting on the 1968 PGA Championship
[/quote]
IMHO majors back in Jacks day and earlier werent the big deal they are today. As has been said, Jack was the only player of his era who would take time off to prepare for the venues. The other guys were too busy trying to make money. Its only really been the last 30 years where majors have become the be all and end all. I think comparing contempories on majors won is a fair yardstick, but comparing Jacks majors to tigers is grossly unfair. Tiger would have won 40 if he swapped generations with Jack but still brought what he has now to the table.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='SurfinTurf' timestamp='1379652043' post='7881635']
I would like to rejoin the conversation if someone could just summarize the last 60 or so pages for me.

Thanks in advance.
[/quote]

No problem:

"18 > 14"

"Nuh uh"

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1379646454' post='7881275']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379611011' post='7878073']
No, it's pretty clear. Jack and Tiger both say NOW that majors are all that counts.

What Jack detractors are saying is that Jack used to say that total wins counts, until he realized he couldn't match Snead's total wins. IIRC, Jack even attempted to add his Senior majors to his total. That's what they are talking about with Jack changing his criteria.

What I (and others) are saying on this page is that what Tiger and Jack think defines the best is relevant, but not the end all, be-all of defining greatness in a golfer. Using other criteria (such as money titles, number of titles, etc.) as well as intangibles such as peak, longevity, and consistency leads me to believe that Tiger's career > Jack's career, regardless of what Tiger or Jack thinks. This is my opinion only (and those who agree with me). After all, if majors are all that counted, why would Tiger even bother playing other tournaments? He'd play 4 majors a year and practice the rest of the year. The fact that he doesn't do that means that other tournaments must mean something to Tiger, even if he won't admit it.
[/quote]

Once again, Jack has aways maintained majors were the most important there was no change, you are wrong as have been the few others who have made that one up.
[/quote]

"As a golfer, it definitely turned me on to be compared to my longtime hero, [b]Bob Jones, and particularly to think that I might someday approach his record. Obviously, the only way to do that was to remain amateur[/b]."

Also,
[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/844648-the-evolution-of-goats/#entry7051916"]http://www.golfwrx.c...s/#entry7051916[/url]

[SurfinTurf]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379655201' post='7881789']
[quote name='SurfinTurf' timestamp='1379652043' post='7881635']
I would like to rejoin the conversation if someone could just summarize the last 60 or so pages for me.

Thanks in advance.
[/quote]

No problem:

"18 > 14"

"Nuh uh"
[/quote]

Would the "New Math" be best summarized as:

Nuh Uh > 18 ?

I'll probably check back in around page 100. Please carry on fellows.

[tstephen]

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1379653955' post='7881729']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379644437' post='7881079']


"There were only 56 touring pros in the starting field of 168 players at San Antonio. One day a writer asked me about this ratio, and I said, 'It's absurd and unfortunate.' Only a third of the players at the PGA were regular tour competitors—or, in other words, the best players in the world. " --- Jack Nicklaus, commenting on the 1968 PGA Championship
[/quote]
IMHO majors back in Jacks day and earlier werent the big deal they are today. As has been said, Jack was the only player of his era who would take time off to prepare for the venues. The other guys were too busy trying to make money. Its only really been the last 30 years where majors have become the be all and end all. I think comparing contempories on majors won is a fair yardstick, but comparing Jacks majors to tigers is grossly unfair. Tiger would have won 40 if he swapped generations with Jack but still brought what he has now to the table.
[/quote]

A FAIRER YARDSTICK - Tiger cannot even use today's technology to find a driver that he can hit in play consistently. Good luck on that one in Jack's era. Tiger would have been lucky to win 1 major and probably would have been between a Weiskopf and Miller in his career totals.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379679962' post='7882289']
A FAIRER YARDSTICK - Tiger cannot even use today's technology to find a driver that he can hit in play consistently. Good luck on that one in Jack's era. Tiger would have been lucky to win 1 major and probably would have been between a Weiskopf and Miller in his career totals.
[/quote]What ifs about how Tiger or Jack would do on the other's equipment is just pointless. No one knows! (BTW, it's absurd to say that Tiger isn't consistent off the tee. He's consistent enough to win 79 tournaments and 14 majors. I'd say that's consistent enough).

What we do know is how each of them performed against their peers and is the only fair comparison to make.

Using performance against peers as a measurement, it's clear that Tiger has had the better career so far. More times leading the tour in money, and in average. More titles. More times with 7 or more titles (4 vs 2). More times with 5 or more titles (10 vs 7).

Basically, Tiger is ahead in every possible measurement . . . except one, total majors won. IMO, judging an entire golfers career based on a single measurement is difficult at best. When that single measurement is number of majors won, you are throwing out their performance in 80% of the tournaments they enter! It'd be like judging baseball players based solely on the number of home runs they hit, instead of evaluating all aspects of their career.

[lsugolf1105]

when it is all said and done and Tiger is enjoying the fruits of his labor, the discussion will not be who is the greatest golfer of all time. It will be is Tiger Woods the greatest sportsman to ever live? And most people will say yes. He will surpass Jordan, Ruth, Ali, Gretzky, Brown, Federer, etc. Some already think he is but the majority will say it when he hangs it up.

[turtleback]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1379646454' post='7881275']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379611011' post='7878073']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379607114' post='7877681']
One Tiger supporter says Jack has less class because of his redefining greatest criteria. Then there is the statement that it is pretty much only Tiger & Jack who think majors are THE measuring stick. Yet others go to favorable for Tiger statements by Trevino or Venturi. And Brock says I don't make sense. I am laughing once more.
[/quote]No, it's pretty clear. Jack and Tiger both say NOW that majors are all that counts.

What Jack detractors are saying is that Jack used to say that total wins counts, until he realized he couldn't match Snead's total wins. IIRC, Jack even attempted to add his Senior majors to his total. That's what they are talking about with Jack changing his criteria.

What I (and others) are saying on this page is that what Tiger and Jack think defines the best is relevant, but not the end all, be-all of defining greatness in a golfer. Using other criteria (such as money titles, number of titles, etc.) as well as intangibles such as peak, longevity, and consistency leads me to believe that Tiger's career > Jack's career, regardless of what Tiger or Jack thinks. This is my opinion only (and those who agree with me). After all, if majors are all that counted, why would Tiger even bother playing other tournaments? He'd play 4 majors a year and practice the rest of the year. The fact that he doesn't do that means that other tournaments must mean something to Tiger, even if he won't admit it.
[/quote]

Once again, Jack has aways maintained majors were the most important there was no change, you are wrong as have been the few others who have made that one up. And, Tiger has always had the same mindset. It's not something that just happened "now".

Consider any criteria you think are relevant.
[/quote]

[b]I am so sick and tired of this revisionist history crap that it is time to completely blow it out of the water. Here is a part of a post a friend wrote once on this subject:[/b]


[quote]
Anything inside quotes is something Jack said; anything outside of quotes is my own paraphrase or imagination, and you're welcome to differ with my opinion of his motives. But I think the quotes pretty much speak for themselves.

1959 --- As an amateur, Jack says that Bobby Jones is the greatest player ever. But he says it in the context of the Grand Slam, not his total major wins. Note that in Jack's 1996 autobiography, he said that he never seriously contemplated turning pro until mid-1961, so he felt he had a long time to try to match the feat of Jones:
"That's my goal. Bobby Jones. It's the only goal."
Unfortunately, the original is no longer linkable since Time put up a pay wall.


1963 --- Now he's a pro, so it's no longer possible to duplicate the Slam of Bobby Jones. Jack nimbly comes up with a new standard for GOAT. He says the guy who wins the most tournaments (not majors) is the greatest golfer of all time: "My aim is to win more golf tournaments than anybody who ever lived. I want to be the greatest." Arnie had averaged over seven wins a year for the previous three years, and Jack had beaten Arnie at the previous US Open, so Jack probably figured he could break Snead's record in no more than 12 years.
[url="http://news.google.c...pg=3429,1549725"]http://news.google.c...pg=3429,1549725[/url]


1965 --- In spite of one of the fastest starts ever, Jack is only averaging four wins per year, which means it might take over 20 years to catch Snead, even if Jack can keep up his youthful pace (he was playing 26 events a year then). Jack reconsiders his chances, and switches goals again. He now considers Hogan as the greatest ever. He says to beat him, he might have to win the (pro) Grand Slam, which only takes one good year. Note that Hogan had fewer majors than Hagen, whom Jack never mentioned as a standard. Note also that Jack is here saying it's possible to be the GOAT with just four majors, if they're consecutive:
"Right now I think you would have to say that Hogan was the best ever. That is the goal, but I don't know how you get there. Maybe I could win the Grand Slam, but what would I do after that if I was still young?"
[url="http://sportsillustr...76860/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...76860/index.htm[/url]


Bonus from 1965: How many times have you read a post claiming that golfers today lack the killer instinct because of the money they can make by just getting top tens? And how the golfers in Jack's day had to win, or their kids would go hungry? Here's an article from 1965 saying that American golfers are too soft, because all their endorsement money makes them not care about winning:
' Palmer summed it up well recently when he was quoted as follows: "I don't think it's a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don't know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don't need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of."'
[url="http://sportsillustr...77470/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...77470/index.htm[/url]


1970 --- This was the watershed year, when Jack switched his goal to most majors, consecutive or not. I haven't found a contemporary account of Jack's exchange with Bob Green, the AP reporter who told Jack that he was only three majors short of Bobby Jones's total after Jack won the 1970 Open at St. Andrews, but here is Jack's recollection of it:
"It's like my majors, I never counted my majors until Bob Green (of The Associated Press) told me at St. Andrews in the '70s. He says, 'Hey, Jack, that's ten, only three more to tie Bobby Jones.' I said, 'Really?' Honest, I swear, I never counted them."
[url="http://sports.nation...to-eclipse-him/"]http://sports.nation...to-eclipse-him/[/url]


1970 -- Jack quickly latches on to the idea of winning four more majors to beat Jones, rather than 50 more PGA events to beat Snead, or the seemingly impossible Grand Slam. One week after his Open win, Jack says his chief goal has always been the Grand Slam, but now adds that his other goal is winning 14 majors to beat Bobby Jones. Note that at this time, it is just his personal goal, and not a suggested standard.
[url="http://news.google.c...pg=3260,2089101"]http://news.google.c...pg=3260,2089101[/url]


1971 -- Jack says his goal in golf is 14 majors to beat Jones's record, but now hints that if he does it, it would make him the GOAT:
"The accomplishment that would separate me from other golfers is to win more major championships than [Jones] did."
[url="http://news.google.c...&pg=766,5396241"]http://news.google.c...&pg=766,5396241[/url]


1973 --- Jack wins his 14th major, breaking Jones's record. He now argues that majors are the only way to judge players of different eras. Note that he sort of acknowledges that it's not fair to Jones, who CHOSE to stop playing majors, but he doesn't mention Hogan, Hagen, Snead, and everybody else who came before him, who COULDN'T play four majors a year, or had several majors cancelled for world wars:
"You can't compare stroke average because of the difference in course and people and equipment. You certainly can't compare money winnings. That's not valid. The only yardstick is the major championships. And even those aren't the same. The comparison is very difficult to make. Remember, Jones retired at 28. If he'd stayed active, there's no telling how many he would have won."
[url="http://news.google.c...pg=5064,4016575"]http://news.google.c...pg=5064,4016575[/url]


1973 --- Dan Jenkins, chief golf writer for SI and Jack's head cheerleader, lends his full support. He says with his 14th major, Jack "officially became the greatest golfer who ever lived or died," and compares an offhand remark Jack made to the Gettysburg Address. You think Tiger has sycophants in the media...
[url="http://sportsillustr...87686/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...87686/index.htm[/url]


1975 --- Now in full lobbying mode, Jack argues that majors are the ONLY FAIR WAY to judge players. Not a hint about Jones retiring early, let alone Hagen hitting his prime before the PGA or Masters were founded:
"Money changes. You can't use that to compare. The only fair, adequate way to compare a player of one era against a player of another is his record in the major championships."
[url="http://news.google.c...pg=7076,4326235"]http://news.google.c...pg=7076,4326235[/url]


1979 --- Mission accomplished. The public has thrown Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Nelson, and Snead under the bus, and bought into the idea that majors are the only fair comparison. Jack says his goal now is to extend his majors record as high as possible, to make it harder for a future player to catch him.
[url="http://news.google.c...pg=6823,6632381"]http://news.google.c...pg=6823,6632381[/url][/quote]

[gusmahler]

At first, I was confused because Jack didn't win his 10th major in 1970. He won his 8th. Then I remembered that everyone used to count Jack's 2 US Amateurs as majors.

When did Jack stop counting the US Amateur as a major?

[MadGolfer76]

I haven't bothered clicking on this thread in a while. You guys have gone nuts.

Out...

[tstephen]

The guy they have gone nuts over just went +6 on his last 4 holes.

[Awsi Dooger]

I'm annoyed whenever I see this thread bumped toward the top, concerned that I'll be tempted to post again. But there was a wonderful tonic on this page, the guy who asserted that Tiger would have won 40 majors in Jack's era. That's the Happy Adjustment caliber you're dealing with too frequently among the Tiger supporters. Sad. Not worth contributing or even sampling, not with football season underway and games to be deciphered.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1379705817' post='7884901']
I'm annoyed whenever I see this thread bumped toward the top, concerned that I'll be tempted to post again. But there was a wonderful tonic on this page, the guy who asserted that Tiger would have won 40 majors in Jack's era. That's the Happy Adjustment caliber you're dealing with too frequently among the Tiger supporters. Sad. Not worth contributing or even sampling, not with football season underway and games to be deciphered.
[/quote]

How's this for a Happy Adjustment? I guess you only see what you want to see.

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379679962' post='7882289']
A FAIRER YARDSTICK - Tiger cannot even use today's technology to find a driver that he can hit in play consistently. Good luck on that one in Jack's era. Tiger would have been lucky to win 1 major and probably would have been between a Weiskopf and Miller in his career totals.
[/quote]

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379706742' post='7884993']
[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1379705817' post='7884901']
I'm annoyed whenever I see this thread bumped toward the top, concerned that I'll be tempted to post again. But there was a wonderful tonic on this page, the guy who asserted that Tiger would have won 40 majors in Jack's era. That's the Happy Adjustment caliber you're dealing with too frequently among the Tiger supporters. Sad. Not worth contributing or even sampling, not with football season underway and games to be deciphered.
[/quote]

How's this for a Happy Adjustment? I guess you only see what you want to see.

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379679962' post='7882289']
A FAIRER YARDSTICK - Tiger cannot even use today's technology to find a driver that he can hit in play consistently. Good luck on that one in Jack's era. Tiger would have been lucky to win 1 major and probably would have been between a Weiskopf and Miller in his career totals.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Brock pulling something out of context again. This seems to be Brock's favorite use of making the opposition look bad.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379720869' post='7886239']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379706742' post='7884993']
[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1379705817' post='7884901']
I'm annoyed whenever I see this thread bumped toward the top, concerned that I'll be tempted to post again. But there was a wonderful tonic on this page, the guy who asserted that Tiger would have won 40 majors in Jack's era. That's the Happy Adjustment caliber you're dealing with too frequently among the Tiger supporters. Sad. Not worth contributing or even sampling, not with football season underway and games to be deciphered.
[/quote]

How's this for a Happy Adjustment? I guess you only see what you want to see.

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379679962' post='7882289']
A FAIRER YARDSTICK - Tiger cannot even use today's technology to find a driver that he can hit in play consistently. Good luck on that one in Jack's era. Tiger would have been lucky to win 1 major and probably would have been between a Weiskopf and Miller in his career totals.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Brock pulling something out of context again. This seems to be Brock's favorite use of making the opposition look bad.
[/quote]

I quoted your entire post, without deleting or changing a thing. If you think it makes you look bad, write better posts.

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379655944' post='7881811']


"As a golfer, it definitely turned me on to be compared to my longtime hero, [b]Bob Jones, and particularly to think that I might someday approach his record. Obviously, the only way to do that was to remain amateur[/b]."

Also,
[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/844648-the-evolution-of-goats/#entry7051916"]http://www.golfwrx.c...s/#entry7051916[/url]
[/quote]

Back to the selective and out of context quotes.

This thread hasn't changed at all.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1379705817' post='7884901']
I'm annoyed whenever I see this thread bumped toward the top, concerned that I'll be tempted to post again. But there was a wonderful tonic on this page, the guy who asserted that Tiger would have won 40 majors in Jack's era. That's the Happy Adjustment caliber you're dealing with too frequently among the Tiger supporters. Sad. Not worth contributing or even sampling, not with football season underway and games to be deciphered.
[/quote]

The good news is

TW is only 37.

This thread will easily reach 1000 pages.

In 2019, after TW wins his 21st Major and divorces his 3rd wife (Miley Cyrus).

[tstephen]

[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1379705817' post='7884901']
I'm annoyed whenever I see this thread bumped toward the top, concerned that I'll be tempted to post again. But there was a wonderful tonic on this page, the guy who asserted that Tiger would have won 40 majors in Jack's era. That's the Happy Adjustment caliber you're dealing with too frequently among the Tiger supporters. Sad. Not worth contributing or even sampling, not with football season underway and games to be deciphered.
[/quote]

The reason why I posted Tiger in Jack's era between Weiskopf and Miller career. One ridiculous reply leads to another. Obviously, Tiger won early in his junior career with persimmon. It wood have been nice to see him at the highest level with persimmon. Yes, Brock I know how I spelled would.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1379721252' post='7886277']


Back to the selective and out of context quotes.

This thread hasn't changed at all.
[/quote]

Not with you posting the same garbage that was discredited months ago.

In the link I gave, I have references to the complete articles for all but the first quote, which cannot be linked to because it's behind a pay wall. Compare that to the posts from Jack fans that are mostly completely unverifiable memories of what they saw 50 years ago, or their wild speculations about alternate universes where Tiger plays against Trevino, and tell me who is documenting his posts, and who isn't.

As for being selective, I thought I had already explained that being selective is what intelligent people do. It's much more efficient than posting everything Jack ever said.

Now, for the 20th time, if the record of Jones that Jack had as his goal was "most majors," then why would turning pro mean he could no longer pursue it? Are you saying that Jack was so stupid that he didn't know that pros could play in the US Open? Post as many pages of context as you want, but either answer the question, or stop making unfounded claims.

And if you think I'm being selective, then post ONE example of Jack clearly saying "most majors" is even his personal goal, let alone the only fair standard for all golfers, any time before 1969.

[tstephen]

Majors have always been the most important tournaments. So, why would winning the most not always have been the measuring stick for the greatest player?

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379722072' post='7886337']
[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1379705817' post='7884901']
I'm annoyed whenever I see this thread bumped toward the top, concerned that I'll be tempted to post again. But there was a wonderful tonic on this page, the guy who asserted that Tiger would have won 40 majors in Jack's era. That's the Happy Adjustment caliber you're dealing with too frequently among the Tiger supporters. Sad. Not worth contributing or even sampling, not with football season underway and games to be deciphered.
[/quote]

The reason why I posted Tiger in Jack's era between Weiskopf and Miller career. One ridiculous reply leads to another. Obviously, Tiger won early in his junior career with persimmon. It wood have been nice to see him at the highest level with persimmon. Yes, Brock I know how I spelled would.
[/quote]

"The one question still put to me most often is: 'Were the golfers of your day as good as those of the present time?' No question is more difficult to answer. It is human, I suppose, for every man to think that his days were the best. Yet in 1927, when I won the British Open at St. Andrews, one of the old-time professionals, described as 'the grand old man of Scottish golf,' was quoted in the newspapers as follows: 'I knew and played with Tom Morris, and he was every bit as good as Jones. Young Tom had to play with a gutty ball, and you could not make a mistake and get away with it. This rubber-cored ball we have now only requires a tap and it runs a mile.'" --- Bobby Jones, 1960

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379722983' post='7886417']
Majors have always been the most important tournaments. So, why would winning the most not always have been the measuring stick for the greatest player?
[/quote]

Jeez, read the last 60 pages. Jack didn't think "most majors" was the standard when he said, in 1965, that he thought Hogan, with 9 majors to Hagen's 11, was the greatest player ever. Both Nelson and Sarazen said the same thing, in 1953. Bobby Jones didn't think "most majors" was the standard when he said, in 1965, that he thought Jack Nicklaus (who had just won his fourth major) was the greatest player ever.

So that's Jones, Sarazen, Nelson, and Nicklaus you're arguing with, not me.

--------------------------
[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1076860/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...76860/index.htm[/url]
February 01, 1965 Double, Double Toil And Trouble
Having reached the quarter-century mark, Nicklaus was in a mood at the Crosby to reflect momentarily on himself and his future. "My ambition," he said quite frankly, "is to be the greatest golfer who ever lived, just as it is Arnold's ambition and everyone else's who plays the game seriously. But we have different ways of going at it. Arnold wants to win the Grand Slam, or what they now call the Grand Slam [the Masters, U.S. Open, British Open and PGA], because he would like to do something that no one has ever done before. [b]I don't yet know what I would have to do to become the greatest[/b]. But I think Sam Snead was wrong when he said publicly the other day that I have reached my peak, though I believe I have an idea what he means.

"When I think of being the greatest golfer, I remind myself that I am only 25, whereas Arnold didn't reach his peak until he was 29 and Hogan until he was 36. [b]Right now I think you would have to say that Hogan was the best ever.[/b] That is the goal, but I don't know how you get there. Maybe I could win the Grand Slam, but what would I do after that if I was still young?" Jack laughed. "Win two Grand Slams?"
------------------------------------------------

Could Jack make it any more clear for you? In 1965, he thought Hogan (with 9 majors) was the best ever, and he didn't know what he could do to surpass him, but he thought maybe winning the Grand Slam, or maybe two of them, would do it.

Do you see anything in there about "most majors"? Do you see anything about Walter Hagen, with 11 pro majors, or Bobby Jones, with 7 pro and 6 amateur majors, being the greatest ever?

Private note to Hawkeye: I am selectively quoting the relevant part of the article, rather than violating the fair use laws and posting the whole thing. The link is there if you want to read more, so I am not attempting to conceal the fact that [i]Dating Game[/i] host Jim Lange was Ken Venturi's partner in the pro-am (page 2), and apparently quite a sandbagger.

[tstephen]

In 1965 Jack was the greatest ever to Bobby Jones. Tiger was the greatest ever at the age of 24. What's the point of playing competitive golf past the age of 25? Oh, wait. You have Vijay and Hogan who had the great careers after 20 years of playing professionally without much success. Hogan being the greatest in the minds of many before and even after Jack. So how can we truly measure the greatest? Tiger has tainted his career with his personal life and now winless streak in majors.
And winning 2 grand slams would certainly mean at least tying Hogan at nine.

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1379690558' post='7883277']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1379646454' post='7881275']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379611011' post='7878073']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379607114' post='7877681']
One Tiger supporter says Jack has less class because of his redefining greatest criteria. Then there is the statement that it is pretty much only Tiger & Jack who think majors are THE measuring stick. Yet others go to favorable for Tiger statements by Trevino or Venturi. And Brock says I don't make sense. I am laughing once more.
[/quote]No, it's pretty clear. Jack and Tiger both say NOW that majors are all that counts.

What Jack detractors are saying is that Jack used to say that total wins counts, until he realized he couldn't match Snead's total wins. IIRC, Jack even attempted to add his Senior majors to his total. That's what they are talking about with Jack changing his criteria.

What I (and others) are saying on this page is that what Tiger and Jack think defines the best is relevant, but not the end all, be-all of defining greatness in a golfer. Using other criteria (such as money titles, number of titles, etc.) as well as intangibles such as peak, longevity, and consistency leads me to believe that Tiger's career > Jack's career, regardless of what Tiger or Jack thinks. This is my opinion only (and those who agree with me). After all, if majors are all that counted, why would Tiger even bother playing other tournaments? He'd play 4 majors a year and practice the rest of the year. The fact that he doesn't do that means that other tournaments must mean something to Tiger, even if he won't admit it.
[/quote]

Once again, Jack has aways maintained majors were the most important there was no change, you are wrong as have been the few others who have made that one up. And, Tiger has always had the same mindset. It's not something that just happened "now".

Consider any criteria you think are relevant.
[/quote]

[b]I am so sick and tired of this revisionist history crap that it is time to completely blow it out of the water. Here is a part of a post a friend wrote once on this subject:[/b]


[quote]
Anything inside quotes is something Jack said; anything outside of quotes is my own paraphrase or imagination, and you're welcome to differ with my opinion of his motives. But I think the quotes pretty much speak for themselves.

1959 --- As an amateur, Jack says that Bobby Jones is the greatest player ever. But he says it in the context of the Grand Slam, not his total major wins. Note that in Jack's 1996 autobiography, he said that he never seriously contemplated turning pro until mid-1961, so he felt he had a long time to try to match the feat of Jones:
"That's my goal. Bobby Jones. It's the only goal."
Unfortunately, the original is no longer linkable since Time put up a pay wall.


1963 --- Now he's a pro, so it's no longer possible to duplicate the Slam of Bobby Jones. Jack nimbly comes up with a new standard for GOAT. He says the guy who wins the most tournaments (not majors) is the greatest golfer of all time: "My aim is to win more golf tournaments than anybody who ever lived. I want to be the greatest." Arnie had averaged over seven wins a year for the previous three years, and Jack had beaten Arnie at the previous US Open, so Jack probably figured he could break Snead's record in no more than 12 years.
[url="http://news.google.c...pg=3429,1549725"]http://news.google.c...pg=3429,1549725[/url]


1965 --- In spite of one of the fastest starts ever, Jack is only averaging four wins per year, which means it might take over 20 years to catch Snead, even if Jack can keep up his youthful pace (he was playing 26 events a year then). Jack reconsiders his chances, and switches goals again. He now considers Hogan as the greatest ever. He says to beat him, he might have to win the (pro) Grand Slam, which only takes one good year. Note that Hogan had fewer majors than Hagen, whom Jack never mentioned as a standard. Note also that Jack is here saying it's possible to be the GOAT with just four majors, if they're consecutive:
"Right now I think you would have to say that Hogan was the best ever. That is the goal, but I don't know how you get there. Maybe I could win the Grand Slam, but what would I do after that if I was still young?"
[url="http://sportsillustr...76860/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...76860/index.htm[/url]


Bonus from 1965: How many times have you read a post claiming that golfers today lack the killer instinct because of the money they can make by just getting top tens? And how the golfers in Jack's day had to win, or their kids would go hungry? Here's an article from 1965 saying that American golfers are too soft, because all their endorsement money makes them not care about winning:
' Palmer summed it up well recently when he was quoted as follows: "I don't think it's a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don't know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don't need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of."'
[url="http://sportsillustr...77470/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...77470/index.htm[/url]


1970 --- This was the watershed year, when Jack switched his goal to most majors, consecutive or not. I haven't found a contemporary account of Jack's exchange with Bob Green, the AP reporter who told Jack that he was only three majors short of Bobby Jones's total after Jack won the 1970 Open at St. Andrews, but here is Jack's recollection of it:
"It's like my majors, I never counted my majors until Bob Green (of The Associated Press) told me at St. Andrews in the '70s. He says, 'Hey, Jack, that's ten, only three more to tie Bobby Jones.' I said, 'Really?' Honest, I swear, I never counted them."
[url="http://sports.nation...to-eclipse-him/"]http://sports.nation...to-eclipse-him/[/url]


1970 -- Jack quickly latches on to the idea of winning four more majors to beat Jones, rather than 50 more PGA events to beat Snead, or the seemingly impossible Grand Slam. One week after his Open win, Jack says his chief goal has always been the Grand Slam, but now adds that his other goal is winning 14 majors to beat Bobby Jones. Note that at this time, it is just his personal goal, and not a suggested standard.
[url="http://news.google.c...pg=3260,2089101"]http://news.google.c...pg=3260,2089101[/url]


1971 -- Jack says his goal in golf is 14 majors to beat Jones's record, but now hints that if he does it, it would make him the GOAT:
"The accomplishment that would separate me from other golfers is to win more major championships than [Jones] did."
[url="http://news.google.c...&pg=766,5396241"]http://news.google.c...&pg=766,5396241[/url]


1973 --- Jack wins his 14th major, breaking Jones's record. He now argues that majors are the only way to judge players of different eras. Note that he sort of acknowledges that it's not fair to Jones, who CHOSE to stop playing majors, but he doesn't mention Hogan, Hagen, Snead, and everybody else who came before him, who COULDN'T play four majors a year, or had several majors cancelled for world wars:
"You can't compare stroke average because of the difference in course and people and equipment. You certainly can't compare money winnings. That's not valid. The only yardstick is the major championships. And even those aren't the same. The comparison is very difficult to make. Remember, Jones retired at 28. If he'd stayed active, there's no telling how many he would have won."
[url="http://news.google.c...pg=5064,4016575"]http://news.google.c...pg=5064,4016575[/url]


1973 --- Dan Jenkins, chief golf writer for SI and Jack's head cheerleader, lends his full support. He says with his 14th major, Jack "officially became the greatest golfer who ever lived or died," and compares an offhand remark Jack made to the Gettysburg Address. You think Tiger has sycophants in the media...
[url="http://sportsillustr...87686/index.htm"]http://sportsillustr...87686/index.htm[/url]


1975 --- Now in full lobbying mode, Jack argues that majors are the ONLY FAIR WAY to judge players. Not a hint about Jones retiring early, let alone Hagen hitting his prime before the PGA or Masters were founded:
"Money changes. You can't use that to compare. The only fair, adequate way to compare a player of one era against a player of another is his record in the major championships."
[url="http://news.google.c...pg=7076,4326235"]http://news.google.c...pg=7076,4326235[/url]


1979 --- Mission accomplished. The public has thrown Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Nelson, and Snead under the bus, and bought into the idea that majors are the only fair comparison. Jack says his goal now is to extend his majors record as high as possible, to make it harder for a future player to catch him.
[url="http://news.google.c...pg=6823,6632381"]http://news.google.c...pg=6823,6632381[/url][/quote]
[/quote]

Yes, repeating for the nth time your buddy Brock's assemblage of selective quotes and unwarranted extrapolations. Nice.

At least he has original thoughts, however misguided.

[bscinstnct]

Greatest is the guy who could kick the crap out of everybody else

The most.

That's it.

[Hawkeye77]

Jack still golf's greatest champion.