Greatest male player ever

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379835141' post='7892073']
[quote name='rhh7' timestamp='1379818283' post='7891483']
Tiger's 5 greatest competitors in order, based on career PGA Money won: [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.01810.html/performance-stats/"]Phil Mickelson[/url] 72,940,492 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.06567.html/performance-stats/"]Vijay Singh[/url] 67,587,095 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.10809.html/performance-stats/"]Jim Furyk[/url] 55,750,638 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.06522.html/performance-stats/"]Ernie Els[/url] 45,945,170 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.01706.html/performance-stats/"]Davis Love III[/url] 42,511,946
[/quote]

All 5 have Tiger by 5.5 to almost 13 years in age. Only Vijay with 3 money titles, 1 Vardon, 1 POTY, & Furyk 1 Vardon, 1 POTY have held any of the 3 titles Brock uses as measuring sticks for greatness. Please, someone explain this to me like I'm a 2 year old, how is Tiger's competition not way weaker than Jack's?
[/quote]Because you're only comparing Jack's 5 best competitors to Tiger's 5 best competitors. If you compare Jack's 20 best competitors to Tiger's 20 best, you'd see what we're talking about wrt to deeper fields. I already addressed the Vardon, POTY, and money in a separate post.

[tstephen]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1379859898' post='7892589']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379835141' post='7892073']
[quote name='rhh7' timestamp='1379818283' post='7891483']
Tiger's 5 greatest competitors in order, based on career PGA Money won: [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.01810.html/performance-stats/"]Phil Mickelson[/url] 72,940,492 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.06567.html/performance-stats/"]Vijay Singh[/url] 67,587,095 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.10809.html/performance-stats/"]Jim Furyk[/url] 55,750,638 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.06522.html/performance-stats/"]Ernie Els[/url] 45,945,170 [url="http://www.pgatour.com/players/player.01706.html/performance-stats/"]Davis Love III[/url] 42,511,946
[/quote]

All 5 have Tiger by 5.5 to almost 13 years in age. Only Vijay with 3 money titles, 1 Vardon, 1 POTY, & Furyk 1 Vardon, 1 POTY have held any of the 3 titles Brock uses as measuring sticks for greatness. Please, someone explain this to me like I'm a 2 year old, how is Tiger's competition not way weaker than Jack's?
[/quote]Because you're only comparing Jack's 5 best competitors to Tiger's 5 best competitors. If you compare Jack's 20 best competitors to Tiger's 20 best, you'd see what we're talking about what to deeper fields. I already addressed the Vardon, POTY, and money in a separate post.
[/quote]

With all due respect, I already went 11 deep in Jack's era on post #2050 and I could add another 14 easily without Hogan or Snead and still have players greater than the players in Tiger's career top ten competition.

You nailed it perfectly what you said about the titles/awards and what is weak with today's players that Tiger has been feasting on all these years. They are all way too inconsistent.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1379835141' post='7892073']
All 5 have Tiger by 5.5 to almost 13 years in age. Only Vijay with 3 money titles, 1 Vardon, 1 POTY, & Furyk 1 Vardon, 1 POTY have held any of the 3 titles Brock uses as measuring sticks for greatness. Please, someone explain this to me like I'm a 2 year old, how is Tiger's competition not way weaker than Jack's?
[/quote]

So [i]that's[/i] why you can't understand my posts! I have been overestimating your mental age by a factor of 3.

It's pretty simple. There is only one POTY, Vardon winner, and money leader each year. If Tiger wins those almost every year, then none of his peers can. If Jack wins zero Vardons, or only wins POTY one year out of five, then lots of his peers can win them.

Unfortunately for you and Jack, you can have ties for third place, so Jack racking up those thirds doesn't help his case as much as a few more POTYs would.

[Hogan's Cardy]

Just checked...it's still Hogan.

Stand easy

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Hogan's Cardy' timestamp='1379880163' post='7893619']
Just checked...it's still Hogan.

Stand easy
[/quote]

Yup.

Imagine somebody yelling "bababooey" when he was on the tee.

He'd walk over and put out a Pall Mall on their chest.

[Golfchicago]

Jack because of his record, inferior equipment and inferior instruction compared to today

[tstephen]

You forgot the fact he had by far the greatest competition in the history of the game.

I laugh when I try to show the importance of majors and performance in them to the Tiger guys to no avail.
The best example is Phil with 5 major wins, 6 US Open 2nds and 20 top 3's to Tiger's 24. So with this concept Phil looks like a great competitor in Tiger's era which is true. However, Tiger's Golfwrx top spokesperson Brock wants to discredit Phil's great performance in majors because it does not fit into his POTY, Vardon Trophy, money leading grand scheme to determine the greatest. Well, guess what?
A guy who leads a tournament in greens and fewest putts will usually win the tournament. POTY IS THE SAME THING. Majors are always going to be the ultimate measuring stick for greatness. Cabrera has 2 wins and 1 2nd(play-off loss) in 200 PGA tournaments.
If these were regular events he would be a journey man pro from Argentina. Instead he is known as a great competitor from Argentina.

[Golf-Junkie]

Nicklaus, followed by Snead then woods.

...with nod to greatest ball striker, Moe Norman.

[bscinstnct]

Compliment to TW that he is

Only 37

And beng ranked as the best.

By men who played with Jack everyday like Trevino and Watson

[tstephen]

The best at his best does not equal greatest of all-time.
Best at his best could arguably be Jones and/or Hogan over Tiger anyway.

[tstephen]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1380249973' post='7917561']
Compliment to TW that he is

Only 37

And beng ranked as the best.

By men who played with Jack everyday like Trevino and Watson
[/quote]

And he was only 32 last time he was lucky enough to win a major.

[Hawkeye77]

Jack's dad was a pharmacist and Tiger wore glasses.

I thought I would introduce the first new arguments since Memorial Day. ;-)

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380246127' post='7917251']
Tiger's Golfwrx top spokesperson Brock wants to discredit Phil's great performance in majors because it does not fit into his POTY, Vardon Trophy, money leading grand scheme to determine the greatest.
[/quote]

You are deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting my position. You know that I don't disregard majors, because you have made many posts mocking my selection of Locke and Thomson in my top ten. You know that I don't disregard wins, because I have made many posts about how great an achievement it is for Tiger to be on the brink of breaking Snead's record, given his strength of schedule. You know that I don't discredit Phil's majors, because you have made many posts mocking my position that it's much harder to win a major today than it was in the 60's. And you know that I have been especially critical of the strength of field of the British Open in the 60's, compared to the field that Phil had to beat to win his Open.

If you want to bash me for not recognizing the importance of your favorite criterion for GOAT, be honest, and talk about third place finishes some more.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380252691' post='7917759']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1380249973' post='7917561']
Compliment to TW that he is

Only 37

And beng ranked as the best.

By men who played with Jack everyday like Trevino and Watson
[/quote]

And he was only 32 last time he was [b]lucky enough[/b] to win a major.
[/quote]

Yeah, he really backed into that win. Completely under the radar until the 91st hole.

[tstephen]

Yep and Rocko sure challenged quite often at majors like Beam, May, and M. Campbell.
I spelled Beem wrong because he is such a household name like so many that have challenged Tiger at a major.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380252691' post='7917759']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1380249973' post='7917561']
Compliment to TW that he is

Only 37

And beng ranked as the best.

By men who played with Jack everyday like Trevino and Watson
[/quote]

And he was only 32 last time he was lucky enough to win a major.
[/quote]

It's a long road

That has no turning-Irish proverb

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1380253434' post='7917809']
Jack's dad was a pharmacist
[/quote]

Hey, you really do have a copy of Jack's autobiography. So read the part about him debating, as a 21-year old amateur, the pros and cons of turning pro, and listing as a negative the fact that it would be impossible for a pro to pursue the record of Bobby Jones.

Why did he say that, if he was talking about "most majors?"

[tstephen]

Kellygreen isn't your alter ego on the Finchem post is it Brock? Just wondering.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380253889' post='7917833']
Yep and Rocko sure challenged quite often at majors like Beam, May, and M. Campbell.
I spelled Beem wrong because he is such a household name like so many that have challenged Tiger at a major.
[/quote]

Right. Now imagine if Rocco or Beem were the only American touring pros in the field.

[redfirebird08]

[quote name='Golf-Junkie' timestamp='1380249502' post='7917523']
Nicklaus, followed by Snead then woods.

...with nod to greatest ball striker, Moe Norman.
[/quote]

I'd like to hear the logic of putting Snead ahead of Woods. Snead never even won a single career Grand Slam, never mind the three that Woods has won.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1380253509' post='7917811']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380246127' post='7917251']
Tiger's Golfwrx top spokesperson Brock wants to discredit Phil's great performance in majors because it does not fit into his POTY, Vardon Trophy, money leading grand scheme to determine the greatest.
[/quote]

You are deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting my position. You know that I don't disregard majors, because you have made many posts mocking my selection of Locke and Thomson in my top ten. You know that I don't disregard wins, because I have made many posts about how great an achievement it is for Tiger to be on the brink of breaking Snead's record, given his strength of schedule. You know that I don't discredit Phil's majors, because you have made many posts mocking my position that it's much harder to win a major today than it was in the 60's. And you know that I have been especially critical of the strength of field of the British Open in the 60's, compared to the field that Phil had to beat to win his Open.

If you want to bash me for not recognizing the importance of your favorite criterion for GOAT, be honest, and talk about third place finishes some more.
[/quote]

You did say you thought Phil would give up a green jacket for a POTY, Vardon Trophy, and Money Leader year did you not? I would be highly interested in any player that has ever won a major championship saying anything remotely close to that statement.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380256184' post='7917949']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1380253509' post='7917811']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380246127' post='7917251']
Tiger's Golfwrx top spokesperson Brock wants to discredit Phil's great performance in majors because it does not fit into his POTY, Vardon Trophy, money leading grand scheme to determine the greatest.
[/quote]

You are deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting my position. You know that I don't disregard majors, because you have made many posts mocking my selection of Locke and Thomson in my top ten. You know that I don't disregard wins, because I have made many posts about how great an achievement it is for Tiger to be on the brink of breaking Snead's record, given his strength of schedule. You know that I don't discredit Phil's majors, because you have made many posts mocking my position that it's much harder to win a major today than it was in the 60's. And you know that I have been especially critical of the strength of field of the British Open in the 60's, compared to the field that Phil had to beat to win his Open.

If you want to bash me for not recognizing the importance of your favorite criterion for GOAT, be honest, and talk about third place finishes some more.
[/quote]

You did say you thought Phil would give up a green jacket for a POTY, Vardon Trophy, and Money Leader year did you not? I would be highly interested in any player that has ever won a major championship saying anything remotely close to that statement.
[/quote]

Yes, I did say I thought Phil would trade a Green Jacket for Tiger's 2013 (which includes not only those awards, but being World #1). But I also said that Tiger would trade his year for a major.

It's not that hard to understand. People value things they've never had more than they value things they have several of. If Tiger has 10 POTYs already and needs more majors to get the only record he doesn't have, then of course he'll trade a POTY for a major. If Adam Scott has never won a major, then of course he wouldn't.

None of that has anything to do with evaluating the entire career of all players at once, except that you look for holes in their resumes. As somebody just noted, Sam Snead didn't win the US Open, and that's a big hole in his resume. I was just speculating about Phil, but I would bet my house that Snead would trade 2 Green Jackets and 2 PGAs for one US Open. And if some other golfer had 3 US Opens, one Masters, and one British Open, I would bet my house that he would trade two of his US Opens for one PGA.

If Tiger is on his game, he wins all the awards, and it might be unfair to gig other players for not winning any. But Phil had some ten years during his career when Tiger was either a complete non-factor, or at least not Tigeresque, and yet Phil didn't manage to win a single Vardon, money title, or POTY during those years. I know it eats at him. I don't know if it eats at him enough that he'd trade a Green Jacket for a Tiger 2013, but I don't think it's a ridiculous notion.

[mr smith]

[quote name='sandy' timestamp='1379749491' post='7887761']
Have to disagree that Tiger has played against deeper fields his entire career. When Tiger started in 1997 the PGA was headed south quick because no stars were around anymore. Everybody that likes to claim these deep fields needs to list a few of these names (like Trevino, Watson, Palmer, Casper, Player, Floyd, Irwin, Faldo, Seve who Nicklaus contended with and lost to during the prime of his career). There are no names like those that Tiger played against his entire career (beat May and Rocco in playoffs big time stars). As a matter of fact several of the superstars of Tiger's heyday (Ernie, Davis, Freddy) often stated they were intimidated by Tiger. Now in the last 5 years Tiger is definitely playing against deeper fields primarily made up of foreign born golfers (who are these new superstar U.S. golfers he is now contending against?) Also how many majors has Tiger pulled down in the last 5 years? [b]0!![/b] Who of this now deeper pool has won more than 2 majors? Not to many that still even make cuts.
[/quote]
Its hardly tigers fault he psyched out fields and intimidated every other player on the planet. It wasnt just his contemporaries either. Lots of greats from the past have said that tiger is on a different level to anyone they have seen, and that he would have murdered the fields othe old days. He would have intimidated fields just as much in the 60s as he did in the 90s. Thats why he is the GOAT and Nicklaus clings to his most majors routine.

[tstephen]

[quote name='mr smith' timestamp='1380265660' post='7918279']
[quote name='sandy' timestamp='1379749491' post='7887761']
Have to disagree that Tiger has played against deeper fields his entire career. When Tiger started in 1997 the PGA was headed south quick because no stars were around anymore. Everybody that likes to claim these deep fields needs to list a few of these names (like Trevino, Watson, Palmer, Casper, Player, Floyd, Irwin, Faldo, Seve who Nicklaus contended with and lost to during the prime of his career). There are no names like those that Tiger played against his entire career (beat May and Rocco in playoffs big time stars). As a matter of fact several of the superstars of Tiger's heyday (Ernie, Davis, Freddy) often stated they were intimidated by Tiger. Now in the last 5 years Tiger is definitely playing against deeper fields primarily made up of foreign born golfers (who are these new superstar U.S. golfers he is now contending against?) Also how many majors has Tiger pulled down in the last 5 years? [b]0!![/b] Who of this now deeper pool has won more than 2 majors? Not to many that still even make cuts.
[/quote]
Its hardly tigers fault he psyched out fields and intimidated every other player on the planet. It wasnt just his contemporaries either. Lots of greats from the past have said that tiger is on a different level to anyone they have seen, and that he would have murdered the fields othe old days. He would have intimidated fields just as much in the 60s as he did in the 90s. Thats why he is the GOAT and Nicklaus clings to his most majors routine.
[/quote]

Really? Maybe in 2000 but not now and pretty much the rest of his career nobody would say he was so much better, and definitely not all time. Do you have anything recently on video for me?
Also, Brock is off his rocker thinking Phil would trade a major. Luke Donald and Lee Westwood are prime examples of world #1s that would give up 10 times the weeks they were at #1 for a major. Not to mention Luke's 2011 massive award year would be traded faster than Brock can rip on this post for a green jacket.
Tiger is going to have 10 times the eyes on him going forward after his great rules "incidents" year. Sad for golf the greatest ever would not win a single major after the age of 32 and now have his credibility in question regarding the rules. I guess you Tiger guys must be golf haters holding him in the highest esteem.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380291101' post='7919035']
Really? Maybe in 2000 but not now and pretty much the rest of his career nobody would say he was so much better, and definitely not all time. Do you have anything recently on video for me?[/quote]

Well, the players seemed to think he was Player of the Year this year. And his trend is upward. 0 wins in 2010 and 2011, 3 in 2012, 5 in 2013. His 10th season with at least 5 wins, compared to a combined total of 2 by everybody else since 1980. And Jack explained why in his 1997 autobiography --- the middle of the pack now is as good as the top players of the Jack era.

But you're right --- he's not as good as he was in 2000. However, if being as good as Tiger was in 2000-01 is the standard for GOAT, then Tiger wins, Hogan is second, and Jack gets another one of those third place finishes you're so fond of. Nobody else has even approached holding all four pro majors trophies, plus the Players, at once. In particular, Jack never won more than two majors in a row, or even in a year, or even in any twelve month period, whether it spanned two calendar years or not.

Tiger just won POTY, the money title, the Vardon, and five strong events in his 18th season on tour, at age 37. The last time Longevity Jack did any of those things was his 15th season on tour, at age 36, when he did two of the four in his two-win, zero-major 1976 season --- and the only reason he won the money title was because the 20-man World Series of Golf he won payed 2.5 times as much as the Masters. The last time Jack did all four of those things the same year was, um, never. So you would have to be an idiot to expect Tiger to play at his all time best forever.

[quote]Also, Brock is off his rocker thinking Phil would trade a major. Luke Donald and Lee Westwood are prime examples of world #1s that would give up 10 times the weeks they were at #1 for a major. Not to mention Luke's 2011 massive award year would be traded faster than Brock can rip on this post for a green jacket.[/quote]

As I said in my last post, it depends on the player, his goals, and what he's already accomplished. However, I do happen to know what Luke Donald would say about that:

"To get to No. 1, you have to have two years of great golf," Donald said Tuesday morning while picking up hardware at PGA of America for his outstanding performance last season. "Would I swap it for winning one major? Certainly not."

[url="http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/sports/golf/stoda-even-without-a-major-victory-luke-donald-c-1/nL3hc/"]http://www.palmbeach...nald-c-1/nL3hc/[/url]

[Hawkeye77]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1380254170' post='7917849']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1380253434' post='7917809']
Jack's dad was a pharmacist
[/quote]

Hey, you really do have a copy of Jack's autobiography. So read the part about him debating, as a 21-year old amateur, the pros and cons of turning pro, and listing as a negative the fact that it would be impossible for a pro to pursue the record of Bobby Jones.

Why did he say that, if he was talking about "most majors?"
[/quote]

Wow, editing quotes, and back to the same old stuff.

I think what I actually posted didn't require your continued fixation or response.

Given one can't even introduce a bit of levity to this endless and circular "debate" without yapping from Tiger's self-appointed press agent, time to leave it until Tiger wins a few more majors and it really is relevant.

[gusmahler]

[quote name='sandy' timestamp='1379749491' post='7887761']
Everybody that likes to claim these deep fields needs to list a few of these names (like Trevino, Watson, Palmer, Casper, Player, Floyd, Irwin, Faldo, Seve who Nicklaus contended with and lost to during the prime of his career).
[/quote]Now other people are reporting the complete BS that Nick Faldo was a contemporary of prime Jack. Jack's prime ended sometime in the late 70s. People can honestly disagree about exactly when his prime ended. But his last POY was 1976 and Watson dominated that award from then on. So it was at least 1977. Certainly by 1979, when Jack finished outside the top 70 in money.

When was Nick Faldo's first title? 1984! At least 5 years after Jack's peak. Hell, Faldo won a title in 1997, the year of Tiger's first POY, so it's actually more correct to list Faldo as Tiger's contemporary as Jack's.

At least you didn't list Greg Norman as Jack's contemporary like some posters do. Norman had the same stats--first title in 1984, last in 1997, so he's also closer to being Tiger's contemporary than Jack's (though I would include neither).

[nochct1]

If I didn't know anything about golf, I would think that Palmer, Jack and Watson were trading wins during Jack's era. Palmer is 11 years older than Jack and stopped winning majors two years after Jack won his first. Watson is ten years younger than Jack and Jack had 5 major wins while Watson was playing solid golf and 15 wins in that same time period.
Yes, Jack had good competition, but its not like he faced the best competition every year of his career. Palmer was starting to slow down when Jack was taking off and Jack was slowing down a bit when Watson started to play great golf. Even Miller's strong play was pretty short lived. Very similar to Tiger running into Vijay when he was playing dominating golf for a short period of time. Or when Duval got hot for a few years.

If there is room for 125 players on tour and they are pulling from a smaller pool of potential players (say 400), then it will probably be top heavy, meaning those at the top will have a much better chance of winning more events, specifically majors.

In today's world of golf, they are pulling from a significantly larger talent pool, resulting in more players who can compete and win. When Watson went to Q school in 1971 there were 357 entrants. By early 2000s there were over 1500 and I'm sure by the time they changed the format it was well over 2000. This doesn't include the amount of talent that we see on the European Tour, and some of the developmental programs in other countries.

If anyone really thinks that in the 1960s, 70s and early 80s that the PGA Tour was somehow able to identify a more talented group of players from a smaller pool of talent, then you are just delusional. Of course the top players would win more.

Is golf special compared to other sports? Are they somehow able to find amazing golfers out of a of 300, but in 2013 are unable to find talent as strong from a pool of several thousand? Just look at basketball, baseball and football. The talent from top to bottom is significantly better now than it was 35-45 years ago.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380253889' post='7917833']
Yep and Rocko sure challenged quite often at majors like Beam, May, and M. Campbell.
I spelled Beem wrong because he is such a household name like so many that have challenged Tiger at a major.
[/quote]

This one has to be the dumbest argument. Does it really matter if the guy hitting the shots is named Mediate or Watson? The fact is THEY WERE HITTING THE SHOTS!! Look at the shots and putts Mediate made to get back into it when he fell behind Tiger in the playoff. That putt he made after Tiger hit the fairway bunker shot inside his ball was one of the great clutch putts ever. Just as good as anything Watson or Trevino could come up with. Look at the shots Tiger had to make just to BE IN the playoff. You act as if Jack losing to Watson was a better achievement than Tiger winning over Mediate or May. Jack lost to some good players, but he also lost to a lot of journeymen.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1380311925' post='7920869']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380253889' post='7917833']
Yep and Rocko sure challenged quite often at majors like Beam, May, and M. Campbell.
I spelled Beem wrong because he is such a household name like so many that have challenged Tiger at a major.
[/quote]

This one has to be the dumbest argument. Does it really matter if the guy hitting the shots is named Mediate or Watson? The fact is THEY WERE HITTING THE SHOTS!! Look at the shots and putts Mediate made to get back into it when he fell behind Tiger in the playoff. That putt he made after Tiger hit the fairway bunker shot inside his ball was one of the great clutch putts ever. Just as good as anything Watson or Trevino could come up with. Look at the shots Tiger had to make just to BE IN the playoff. You act as if Jack losing to Watson was a better achievement than Tiger winning over Mediate or May. Jack lost to some good players, but he also lost to a lot of journeymen.
[/quote]

We can play the game the other way too. If Doug Sanders had not missed a putt inside of 3 feet, Jack would only have two career slams and 17 majors. If 2002 was 1968, Rich Beem would not have even been playing in the PGA Championship. If 2009 was 1975, YE Yang would not have been playing in the PGA Championship either. If 2005 was 1972, Michael Campbell wouldn't have been playing in the US Open. Take those four instances and suddenly it's a tie. Obviously all a guy can do is beat the people in front of him, but to do so in the face of worldwide competition is much more impressive. IMO anyway.

How many people these days are like this chap: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_White_(golfer)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_White_(golfer)[/url]

Didn't turn pro because there was no money in it.