Greatest male player ever

[rjp322]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1368417492' post='7022328']
Sportsmanship is the heart of golf.
[/quote]

Sportsmanship has nothing to do with a golfers talent. Besides when has Tiger been a poor sport on the course? Cussing or swearing is not being a poor sport. Every one does it to a certain degree. When have you ever heard Tiger complain after his round? Never because he doesnt and he doesnt make excuses. Either way it should have nothing to do when determining the GOAT. We know who you are biased towards lol

[Awsi Dooger]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1368413183' post='7021818']
Watson, Casper, Palmer, Trevino, Miller, Player (and we can add several more) vs. Phil, Ernie, Paddy, Bambi (Vijay to you) . . .

All time is all time. Except for Phil, Tiger isn't beating any legends (time will tell, however). [/quote]

Exactly right. Phil is an all time great but he's fragile, not nearly as likely to contend in a major as the wave of mentally tough giants who Jack had to contend with throughout his career.

I don't like to comment on athletes, or anything, before my time. I understand situational influence, and that not everything can be grasped from a record book or history book. For example, on football sites these days there's a frenzy among young fans to denounce Joe Namath, and assert more than arrogantly that he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. It's comical ignorance but you'll never convince them of that. They look at completion percentage or interception percentage as if it relates directly to the current game. Same thing with aspects like scoring average in golf. It's hardly parallel. I've attended Doral since 1968, not every year but plenty. The greens decades ago were noticeably less consistent and dependable than now, when they look like a carpet. I remember watching Jack agonize to Angelo that the greens varied in speed, and none were the same as the practice green. The condition of the greens is easily the top difference I detect from decades ago, to today. Obviously the ball flight is different but that's across the board. Nicklaus and Weiskopf hit towering drives like modern titanium, while almost everybody else hit rising jet trails.

Tiger can be superior to Jack, even though Tiger played against markedly inferior competition at the top. I have no idea why Tiger apologists are so determined to pretend the chief rivals in this era are better than they are. Matt Kuchar is a touted player in this era. He's nothing in historical terms, a nice guy who changed his swing and was rewarded. Years from now am I supposed to list Matt Kuchar among the guys who Tiger had to deal with, part of the so-called astounding depth, and have anyone take me seriously? I like Kuchar, BTW. I'm not sure why I picked him, among everyone. But those type of guys accompany every era. I could start listing Don January and Frank Beard and any number of talented guys from Nicklaus' era. The younger posters don't know the names and can't visualize the swings so they are comfortable denouncing the entire cast.

We're in a strength of schedule era, thanks to the BCS. That's part of the problem. Tiger fans don't dare acknowledge that Jack played against superior golfers at the top because that runs counter to everything the media and their friends are telling them, that the level of competition defines how good you are. I think it's hysterical. Boise State would have been a darling in any other era but these days they've acquired more than their share of haters, because they run opposed to the notion that you can't be great unless your schedule is strenuous. I've got a 1972 Miami Dolphins video on my YouTube channel. It attracts negative comments all the time, with jealous fans of other teams attacking the Dolphin schedule. Anyone who watched that team in real time felt hopeless as Csonka rolled through one team after another. Miami was a 4 point road underdog in game one at Kansas City, and the same in week three at Minnesota. Preseason magazines claimed it was the toughest opening schedule in the league. But when you inherit results and stats and tunnel vision these days, suddenly you know everything about teams and athletes and their competition from decades earlier, even if it doesn't jive at all with realities at the time.

Actually, it can be very profitable. One of the first big scores I made was Seattle Slew to defeat Affirmed in the 1978 Marlboro Cup. Conventional wisdom defined Affirmed as superior, because he faced Alydar race after race, while Slew was in a mediocre crop, defeating the likes of Run Dusty Run. Meanwhile, Slew simply was a freak...faster and more dominant than Alydar.

Tiger doesn't need to be running against legends to be the best of all time. I guess that's what I'm saying. And good thing, because he's not.

[tstephen]

I guess golf just went down the crapper if part of being the best is not sportsmanship. I was not even talking about spitting, swearing, and flinging clubs into galleries. This is like arguing with a brick wall.

[Guia]

John Henry was a better horse than either Affirmed, Slew, or Alydar. To Thoroughbred followers equal to
Secretariat.

[rjp322]

If Phil, Vijay, Ernie etc played in that era they would have far more majors than they do now and if those past guys played in todays era, they would have far less majors then they do now. You guys wont agree though even when Jack essentially said it himself and he is your hero. When only a smaller % of the field can win it is far more likely the same players will be towards the top. When the entire field can win in any given week, it is far harder to stay at the top which makes Tigers win % that much more incredible

[tstephen]

I still think Watson, Trevino, and Player are tougher to win a major against than all players today combined period and I'm not a Player fan at all.

[rjp322]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1368420038' post='7022500']
I still think Watson, Trevino, and Player are tougher to win a major against than all players today combined period and I'm not a Player fan at all.
[/quote]

Well they sure didnt show up on the weekends in all the majors Jack won. Reread the long summary I posted if you need a refresher. But yet Jack guys constantly say Tiger didnt beat any greats which isnt the case because there are plenty of great players in the field. It is just a matter of who shows up. These greats didnt show up when Jack won just like alot didnt when Tiger won. I want to say 7 of Tigers 14 majors, 2nd place was a major winner. It's not like he is beating scrubs but people try to claim he is

[Guia]

No, there are plenty of good players in Tiger's field. If there were great players in the field then
Tiger would not have 14 majors with 78 wins. Like Sergio, no one has ever consistently
challenged him.

[turtleback]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368407890' post='7021094']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368404934' post='7020690']
You must have also missed this quote in this thread directly from JACK NICKLAUS so Ill post it again

[color=#282828]“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”[/color]
[/quote]

Jack has always been extremely diplomatic, what would you expect him to say. Do ou really believe Jack believes that someone like Adam Scott (hopefully a decent example of someone towards the top of today's game) is the equal of Watson or Tevino. Obviously it is quite presumptuous of me to think I know what Jack thinks, but I would bet that would be closer to the truth. And I'll bet he thinks he would have beaten Tiger as much as the other way around. But Jack as always been one to give more accolades to others than himself.
[/quote]

You DO realize that he wrote this in 1996 when there was no Tiger Woods on tour yet? I didn't think so

[rjp322]

[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1368420571' post='7022542']
No, there are plenty of good players in Tiger's field. If there were great players in the field then
Tiger would not have 14 majors with 78 wins. Like Sergio, no one has ever consistently
challenged him.
[/quote]

Because he is that much better than they are. Not sure what is so hard to understand. Week in and week out anyone in the field can win and yet Tiger continues to do so at a staggering 27% or so. Jack however had a much smaller group of guys that could win week in and week out and won at a whopping 12% and like 18% in his glory days. It is pretty simple logic to understand but so many fail to do so. What Tiger is doing is far more impressive

[rjp322]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1368420762' post='7022556']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368407890' post='7021094']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368404934' post='7020690']
You must have also missed this quote in this thread directly from JACK NICKLAUS so Ill post it again

[color=#282828]“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”[/color]
[/quote]

Jack has always been extremely diplomatic, what would you expect him to say. Do ou really believe Jack believes that someone like Adam Scott (hopefully a decent example of someone towards the top of today's game) is the equal of Watson or Tevino. Obviously it is quite presumptuous of me to think I know what Jack thinks, but I would bet that would be closer to the truth. And I'll bet he thinks he would have beaten Tiger as much as the other way around. But Jack as always been one to give more accolades to others than himself.
[/quote]

You DO realize that he wrote this in 1996 when there was no Tiger Woods on tour yet? I didn't think so
[/quote]

And yet you do think it rings true today? It rings even more true today as the field is far far far better and deeper so to be near the top is much harder. Thanks for strengthening my point (and yes I knew it was from 1996)

[Awsi Dooger]

Tiger shaping the ball both ways allows a considerably greater chance to pick up the 4+ majors. I remember posting after Augusta that it was a positive he tried to draw the ball on #2 on Sunday, even though he overcooked it. Many Tiger fans said they thought it was a mistake, that he needed to stay with the cut. I suspect they saw the difference this week.

Last year Tiger was working on a draw at the range, but couldn't take it to the course successfully. This year he seemingly waited until he knew everything was clicking. You can probably measure Tiger from this point forward based on how confident he is at using the shape that the shot calls for, and how he fares on the par 5s.

Tiger's edge on everybody is based on par 5s. That's probably the one angle absent from this thread. Nobody has dissected and overpowered par 5s like Tiger. He's a very very good but not dominant player, other than par 5s. At Augusta it seemed inevitable he wouldn't win, since from the opening round he was failing to birdie half the par 5s. This week he led the field.

If they had kept stats at the time, it would be interesting to check Tiger's par 5 birdie percentage alongside Jack's.

[Guia]

I AGREE that Tiger is much better than the field, even great. But I think that Jack had better top
competition. Look at the number of Majors won by his competition. Jack's field was not as deep, but it
had tougher and greater players.

[turtleback]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368420883' post='7022568']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1368420762' post='7022556']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1368407890' post='7021094']
[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368404934' post='7020690']
You must have also missed this quote in this thread directly from JACK NICKLAUS so Ill post it again

[color=#282828]“Whether for the above reasons or any others, the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation.”[/color]
[/quote]

Jack has always been extremely diplomatic, what would you expect him to say. Do ou really believe Jack believes that someone like Adam Scott (hopefully a decent example of someone towards the top of today's game) is the equal of Watson or Tevino. Obviously it is quite presumptuous of me to think I know what Jack thinks, but I would bet that would be closer to the truth. And I'll bet he thinks he would have beaten Tiger as much as the other way around. But Jack as always been one to give more accolades to others than himself.
[/quote]

You DO realize that he wrote this in 1996 when there was no Tiger Woods on tour yet? I didn't think so
[/quote]

And yet you do think it rings true today? It rings even more true today as the field is far far far better and deeper so to be near the top is much harder. Thanks for strengthening my point (and yes I knew it was from 1996)
[/quote]

Hey, I am the one who posted it originally - you are quoting me quoting Jack. Of course it is even more so now than it was then. I was responding to the implication deadsolid was making that Jack was being diplomatic about Tiger, when the fact is that he said this before Tiger came out and before it became evident that Tiger was going to challenge Jack's records.

[turtleback]

[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1368421136' post='7022578']
I AGREE that Tiger is much better than the field, even great. But I think that Jack had better top
competition. Look at the number of Majors won by his competition. Jack's field was not as deep, but it
had tougher and greater players.
[/quote]

Don't you get it? It is the very fact that the fields were not deep in Jack's era that allowed the other good players to win so many more majors than the good players of today can win? It is the number of majors won by Jack's competitors that is the best evidence for the weakness of the fields back then.

[rafer11]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368267951' post='7010990']
Tiger Woods and it isnt close. Have had this discussion over and over with alot of people and the numbers are not close. The only category Jack leads in is majors won and that is because he has played more of them. Tiger has played against better competition (deeper fields his entire career and his win % is more than double Jacks if I recall correctly.
[/quote]

+1

This thread ended back on post #10. How is it 7 pages deep already.

Whether you are a tiger lover or hater, the debate is not even worth having. The two aren't even on the same level. Tiger is from another planet. Jack is a GREAT player. But Tiger is worlds better. That doesn't take anything away from Jack though.

[Guia]

Turtleback: Nothing on this subject ever gets settled. How can argue the point with such a great closeras Sergio to represent the field? I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[Brock Savage]

It's impossible to KNOW which player was best, when comparing different eras. The only way to know who was best would be to somehow get them all together at their peaks, somehow equalize the effects of different clubs and balls and courses, and then have them play against each other for five or ten years on a variety of courses.

The best you can do is see who was the most dominant in his own era, and then try to equalize for strength of field. Tiger easily wins that contest on both counts. He was the most dominant, and he played the toughest fields.

The advocates of that view have the facts on their side. Jack has more majors, but Tiger has more of everything else -- wins, Vardons, money titles, POYs, margin of victory records, etc.

And longevity is not dominance. Tiger would not be dominating if he won nothing from now on except one major every three years for the next fifteen years. And yet, that would give him 19 majors, and people who consider themselves fair-minded would say, OK, now I admit he's the best. But winning once every three years, even if it's in majors, doesn't make you the best, it just means you were pretty good for a long time. If you don't already think he's the best, then why should you change your opinion if he wins five more times in 15 years?

Dominance is what he's doing now -- winning more times before June than some major winners have in their careers. It's what he did before --- having year after year of most wins, most majors, the Vardon, the money title, and the POY. Only four golfers in history have done that. Hogan did it in 1953; Arnie did it in 1962; Watson did it in 1977. Jack never did it. And Tiger did it in 2000, 2002, 2005, and 2006. More times than all other players combined.

The people who say it's harder to win today have both facts and logic on their side. Jack stated the logical aspect of the case very eloquently in his autobiography, which has already been quoted. But he didn't quantify it with facts.

The facts are there, though. It's a verifiable fact that before 1975 or so, many of the best US players skipped the British Open, and many of the best international players skipped the US majors. If you subtract the seniors and amateurs who had no chance, the British Opens that Gary, Arnie, and Jack racked up from 1959 to 1968 had less than ten US players, and some of them had less than five. It just wasn't worth the time and expense of traveling to Scotland for such a small prize, typically less than a regular PGA event. And the time and expense was even worse for players from South Africa and Australia. Peter Thomson went, but not most of his peers. So of course when Arnie and Jack started playing it, they cleaned up. It was probably a weaker field than most of the regular PGA events.

The US majors were stronger, because all the top US players were there, but they were still weaker than a modern WGC, because very few international players showed up. In those days, most weren't even eligible for the PGA Championship, and they had to come to the US to qualify before they could enter the US Open, which meant a huge cost in time and money with no guarantee of even playing. The result was that they mostly didn't enter. Gary Player, Bruce Crampton, and a very few others, and that was it. Imagine a major with only half a dozen international players, and you have what the majors of the 60's were like.

The people saying Jack's top competition was tougher because they had more majors are just indulging in circular reasoning. They had more majors because they played against weaker fields. Given the growth in the population, the growth in the number of serious and talented golfers (9000 entrants in the US Opens of this century vs 3000 in the 60's), the big money today, the advanced coaching and training available today, and the addition of the rest of the world into the fields, there is every reason to believe that there are more great players today than 50 years ago.

On the other hand, there is no concrete reason to believe that there were more great players 50 years ago --- you just have to postulate that there were better genetics then, or something. How else would you explain it?

[rafer11]

Watson, Casper, Palmer, Trevino, Miller, Player (and we can add several more) vs. Phil, Ernie, Paddy, Bambi (Vijay to you) . . .

 

All time is all time. Except for Phil, Tiger isn't beating any legends (time will tell, however).

 

Exactly right. Phil is an all time great but he's fragile, not nearly as likely to contend in a major as the wave of mentally tough giants who Jack had to contend with throughout his career.

 

I don't like to comment on athletes, or anything, before my time. I understand situational influence, and that not everything can be grasped from a record book or history book. For example, on football sites these days there's a frenzy among young fans to denounce Joe Namath, and assert more than arrogantly that he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. It's comical ignorance but you'll never convince them of that. They look at completion percentage or interception percentage as if it relates directly to the current game. Same thing with aspects like scoring average in golf. It's hardly parallel. I've attended Doral since 1968, not every year but plenty. The greens decades ago were noticeably less consistent and dependable than now, when they look like a carpet. I remember watching Jack agonize to Angelo that the greens varied in speed, and none were the same as the practice green. The condition of the greens is easily the top difference I detect from decades ago, to today. Obviously the ball flight is different but that's across the board. Nicklaus and Weiskopf hit towering drives like modern titanium, while almost everybody else hit rising jet trails.

 

Tiger can be superior to Jack, even though Tiger played against markedly inferior competition at the top. I have no idea why Tiger apologists are so determined to pretend the chief rivals in this era are better than they are. Matt Kuchar is a touted player in this era. He's nothing in historical terms, a nice guy who changed his swing and was rewarded. Years from now am I supposed to list Matt Kuchar among the guys who Tiger had to deal with, part of the so-called astounding depth, and have anyone take me seriously? I like Kuchar, BTW. I'm not sure why I picked him, among everyone. But those type of guys accompany every era. I could start listing Don January and Frank Beard and any number of talented guys from Nicklaus' era. The younger posters don't know the names and can't visualize the swings so they are comfortable denouncing the entire cast.

 

We're in a strength of schedule era, thanks to the BCS. That's part of the problem. Tiger fans don't dare acknowledge that Jack played against superior golfers at the top because that runs counter to everything the media and their friends are telling them, that the level of competition defines how good you are. I think it's hysterical. Boise State would have been a darling in any other era but these days they've acquired more than their share of haters, because they run opposed to the notion that you can't be great unless your schedule is strenuous. I've got a 1972 Miami Dolphins video on my YouTube channel. It attracts negative comments all the time, with jealous fans of other teams attacking the Dolphin schedule. Anyone who watched that team in real time felt hopeless as Csonka rolled through one team after another. Miami was a 4 point road underdog in game one at Kansas City, and the same in week three at Minnesota. Preseason magazines claimed it was the toughest opening schedule in the league. But when you inherit results and stats and tunnel vision these days, suddenly you know everything about teams and athletes and their competition from decades earlier, even if it doesn't jive at all with realities at the time.

 

Actually, it can be very profitable. One of the first big scores I made was Seattle Slew to defeat Affirmed in the 1978 Marlboro Cup. Conventional wisdom defined Affirmed as superior, because he faced Alydar race after race, while Slew was in a mediocre crop, defeating the likes of Run Dusty Run. Meanwhile, Slew simply was a freak...faster and more dominant than Alydar.

 

Tiger doesn't need to be running against legends to be the best of all time. I guess that's what I'm saying. And good thing, because he's not.

 

 

That's right. Not just a single facepalm. Only a double would do for this one :rofl:

 

-----------------------------

 

Analogy

 

Let's use a simple analogy...

 

 

Natural Selection and Antibiotic Resistance. Simple evolution. At the top of the image we represent bacteria with varying resistance levels. The bacteria is attacked by antibiotics, the low resistance bacteria is killed off, and we're left with a small amount of high resistance bacteria. After growth and multiplying... we not have all antibiotic resistant bacteria. Super simple stuff. Analogy over.

 

On to Golf: Tiger vs Jack

 

The main argument often thrown out in favor of Jack is that he had better top competition, and Tiger has had weak competition.

 

We need to know the context though to make such claims.

 

If someone tells me Michael Jordan hit 10,000 shots in a row. That may or may be amazing. You must know the context though. If they are 3 pointers, that's astounding! If he is standing on a ladder, dropping the ball into the bucket... it's a pretty boring feat.

 

Context

 

How can one determine the context of Jack vs Tiger. Well, this need to be prefaced with a comment stating that's it's very difficult to compare era's. But let's try our best.

 

For this... we are going to pretend we are creating a new sport called WRXBall. We are going to make some assumptions for how good people are at WRXBall.

 

If you pick a random 10 people who play WRXBall... you get the following skill rankings. We will base the skill rankings on a 1-10 scale. 1 = Terrible at WRXBall, 10 = Great at WRXBall. If we pick a random 10 WRXBall players, imagine we get the following distribution. 9.7, 7.2, 4.8, 4.3, 4.2, 4.0, 3.5, 2, 1.5, 1.

 

We need a 10 person WRXBall league. We hold open tryouts, and 30 WRXBallers try out. We pick the top 10, and we end up with the following skill distribution. 9.7, 9.7, 9.7, 7.2, 7.2, 7.2, 4.8, 4.8, 4.8, 4.3.

 

WRXBall goes on to become a wild success... and it's the 100th anniversary year. 100 Major WRXBall championships have been played. All said and done... our 10 players will have a rough Major Championship winning distribution of ~14, ~14, ~14, ~10, ~10, ~10, ~7, ~7, ~7, ~6. (1.44 * their skill distribution).

 

Deeper Fields

 

100 Major Championships into WRXBall... the game has exploded... and there are now 1000's of WRXBallers playing. Open tryouts are held with 100 WRXBallers show up, and we pick the top 10. We get a distribution of 10 guys who are 9.7 on the skill level. The top guy in the league is equally skilled with the bottom guy in the league. After 100 Major Championships in the next 100 years of WRXBall... each player has 10 Majors. There is very little variance from the top player to the bottom player. It becomes increasingly harder to separate your players from other players in the league because the competition is deeper.

 

WRXBall fans says that the top guys back in the day were better, because 3 guys had 14 Majors each. People are unimpressed with today's players because they are so much closer and skill... and as a result... don't win multiple times as often.

 

Today

 

Look at today's player and remove Tiger from the scenario. You've got Phil/Els/Vijay with 4/4/3. It's looks unimpressive when comparing it to back in the day. But once again we must ask ourselves.... what is the context.

 

The context is this. Back in the day... there were considerably less people playing the game of golf, and playing it seriously, at a high level. When picking 200 players to play on the tour... the variance between the top guy and the bottom guy was HUGE. It makes it way easier for the top guy to win a tournament over the bottom guy. The bottom guy isn't much of a threat because he is so far behind the top guy in skill. The 50th best player on tour back in the day likely wouldn't even make the web.com tour today.

 

Today... the game has grown exponentially. Millions are playing worldwide. Players in Asia are becoming a threat as the game opens in new markets. The talent pool of the top 200 golfers are incredibly strong. The variance between the top player and the bottom player is very tight. The bottom player is a legitimate threat. It's a very legitimate reality on tour these days that a guy like Derek Ernst can play in only his 7th tour start and win. The odds of that happening back in the day were possible but no where near as great.

 

Simplify it for me

 

All you really need to do to understand perceived field strength and whether the top players back in the day were better than top players of today is ask yourself one question.

 

Regardless of actual player skill... when looking at the mathematics of the situation... do the top players in a certain field stand a greater or lesser chance of winning multiple times when the available talent pool of the league is chosen from a smaller or larger group of people?

 

Looks at the amount of 2 and 3 time majors winners. (Demaret, Middlecoff, Guldahl, Casper, Singh, Irwin, Boros, Stewart, Nelson, Armour, Anderson, Cotton, Ferguson, Harrington, Price, Shute, Crenshaw, Langer, Olazábal, Smith, Cabrera, Wood, Zoeller, Lyle, O'Meara, Burke, Jr., Ford, Picard, Goosen, Janzen, McDermott, North, Smith, Strange, Jacklin, Miller, Ray, Dutra, Graham, Green, McIlroy, Hilton, Martin, Norman, Park, Jr., Daly, Hutchison, Diegel, Runyan, Stockton). The overwhelming majority of from back in the day. Am I supposed to believe all these guys were better than all the guys in the 00's because they all grabbed a couple majors and lots of recent players didn't win multiple times.

 

The multiple major winner is becoming a thing of the past, because the fields are deeper. If the earth could hold 100 billion people, and 10 billion played golf, and the top 200 players were on Tour winning multiple majors would be near statistically impossible. You could have 200 majors, and 200 individual winners.

 

Like our analogy above with antibiotic resistance... if you had a person with a bacteria having 10 units... and another person with a bacteria having 1,000,000 millions units... would antibiotics have a better chance of completely wiping out the first or second person's bacteria completely? Which group of bacteria stands a better chance of surviving the attack?

 

Conclusion

 

People use the Tiger vs Phil/Els/Vijay argument, the 14/4/4/3 argument, as a diss to Woods. However... they fail to understand the context. The argument actually works in reverse. To be able to separate yourself from the nearest competitors by that wide a margin is ASTOUNDING... in this modern PGA era where multiple majors winners increasingly become a thing of the past as each year passes.

 

Most sports fans aren't critical thinkers, they pick their favorite and make claims for him. However, once you understand the context of the situation... you understand the truly amazing feat that is happening before your eyes.

 

Let it be known... Tiger is on another level than Jack. To even consider them together... when you unveil the true context... becomes an absurdity. That's not taking anything away from Jack and how great he was. But Tiger Woods is from another planet.

[ThominOH]

Dooger.. That was the best post I've read in ages about this topic from any site I ever ran across.. While I was reading your post, one other thing kept coming to mind from this past weekend at The Players.. Mark Rolfing on Sunday was commenting that he wants to see more "drama" on tour as we saw between Sergio and Tiger because he feels it's good for the game.. The only thing I could think was good for the game, or good for the pocket books (execs and media)? Seems the general public loves controversy especially "who's best" in (insert title)..

[tstephen]

Tiger or Eldrick Tont (ET) is other worldly and has been the best thing for golf. However, only 1 guy (Yang) has ever taken Tiger down in a major using hydrids (alien clubs?). Beamer won an epic battle against Tiger but was leading after 3. ET only has 3 other epic battles in majors with Rocko, Serigio(99) and Bob May. Jack on the other hand had Palmer & Hogan in 60, Palmer in 62, Trevino in 71 and again with Jacklin 72 British that cost Jack the 3rd leg of the slam, Miller & Weiskopf in 75 Masters, 77 Watson shoot out at Troon and finally 86 Masters with Norman, Seve, and Kite. Maybe if the ET fans saw the tournaments unfold and did not just look at final results as with Sergio this week they might have the ability to argue this point.

[tstephen]

Whoops Watson and Jack at Turnberry. I got Weiskopf in the equation and was thinking Troon. Anyway all greatest legends in sports had the greatest rivals. Too bad for Tiger really that no one has ever been able to step up to greatest.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1368422309' post='7022632']
The two aren't even on the same level.
[/quote]

No, they are on the same level along with Hogan and Jones. It's the Big 4 and then everyone else.

[hogans71]

[quote name='redfirebird08' timestamp='1368452402' post='7023860']
[quote name='rafer11' timestamp='1368422309' post='7022632']
The two aren't even on the same level.
[/quote]

No, they are on the same level along with Hogan and Jones. It's the Big 4 and then everyone else.
[/quote]

My sentiments exactly...

[tembolo1284]

hogans71...I think you are the greatest male player ever.

[hogans71]

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1368452932' post='7023908']
hogans71...I think you are the greatest male player ever.
[/quote]

Too much steak this weekend for you t- clouding up your judgment!

[Golf Monkey]

[quote name='rjp322' timestamp='1368267951' post='7010990']
Tiger Woods and it isnt close. Have had this discussion over and over with alot of people and the numbers are not close. The only category Jack leads in is majors won and that is because he has played more of them. Tiger has played against better competition (deeper fields his entire career and his win % is more than double Jacks if I recall correctly.
[/quote]

Better competition? Try Palmer, Player, Trevino, Miller, Thompson, Watson, Weiskopf, Casper, Nelson, Floyd, Ballesteros!

[stuckntx]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1368418417' post='7022398']
I guess golf just went down the crapper if part of being the best is not sportsmanship. I was not even talking about spitting, swearing, and flinging clubs into galleries. This is like arguing with a brick wall.
[/quote]

Do you really think that golfers of the past were any more sportsman like than those of today? Give me a break. These older guys never had to worry about a camera up their butt for the entire round. They cursed, smoked, drank and womanized like sailors.

I swear that some of you people have a fantasy built up in your head about this game/

[redfirebird08]

One thing that gets overlooked is Tiger has a good chance to break Seve's record for Euro Tour wins. That is crazy considering he isn't a full time member. Just goes to show how successful he has been in the majors and WGC's. He is only 11 wins behind Seve and still has many competitive years left.

[lumberman2462]

Nicklaus himself has acknowledged that there were only a handful of guys that he had to beat on a given week. The Big Three plus maybe 10 more guys throughout the 1960s that were really in that upper class of players. Depth of ability and talent on the Tour is incredible right. The Players is a prime example - we just witnessed a guy playing in his 13th Tour Event almost win the thing - after missing 8 cuts.

With all of the computing power out there and the fact that the PGA Tour has kept pretty good records for a long time - It would be fascinating to see a historical World Golf Ranking using the current criteria. I'd be willing to be that we'd see huge separation -- in points -- between Jack, Arnie, Gary, Casper and a few other over the 60s. It would also be interesting to see what happened when Johnny Miller & Tom Watson came along in the 1970s.

Some smart guy with a lot of time on his hand should jump on that project and post the results.