Greatest male player ever

[tstephen]

[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1380835119' post='7949077']
TSTEPHEN: You mentioned my limited experience, that is quite an assumption. I am 74 years young and
been playing for 60 years. You enjoy watching the Seniors play, good for you. However, don't assume
that because others (me)think they are boring that we (me) don't know what we (me) are talking about.
Your very opinionated.
[/quote]

If you don't like over opinionated statements why would you use the word boring 3 consecutive times? Also, you ripped on The Senior Tour 2 years before it officially formed from one lousy event - probably the first Legends tournament and that tournament actually was boring(no Arnie yet). But I only need to say it once.

The 2nd part of my recent post was directed at gusmahler and his comments regarding me living in the past and I did say that I definitely am biased to sports and the golf from 30 - 40 years ago. I have also commented on how incredible Tiger's story book career was until his loss to Yang, then his "incident", and now his careless disregard for the rules.

[Guia]

You need to re-read what I posted. Which was that I thoroughly enjoyed the 1978 Senior Event. It was
unique to the time and had legendary players.

I think what I didn't like about your post was your bragging on your VAST knowledge and EXPERIENCE. Many
on this site have just as much experience as you do, some have more. Your post smacked of "you guys
don't know as much as I, so your opinion doesn't matter". That is a challenge for arguement.

IMO too many of the Champion Tour Pro's lack luster and did not have that fantastic of a career on the
regular tour. I understand why they still play; money and a degree of competitiveness. I don't hate
the Champions Tour and do watch it infrequently. It is just not exciting to me and is 3rd to the other
tours on TV.

[tstephen]

Funny thing, I actually enjoyed The Champions Tour so much more when guys your age were the active members. I think that tour has gone into a boring state where the guys are just padding their wallets. It is too bad they are more interesting in their commercials. Women's golf is boring too and I think it is a sign of desperation that they both have a 5th major. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[bscinstnct]

Congrats, tstephen. You got 2,222.

[tstephen]

Guia got the four deuces and that makes him the wild man of this thread. I did mis-read his earlier post but I still disagree on the first 25 years of The Champions Tour. He is right about boring and pretty much everything that is not our big tour is boring today, The Champions Tour has been getting more boring all the time starting about 7 years ago, but let's face it, how can any tour compare to The PGA? Now I have used boring 4 times in this post but not consecutively. I feel like a hockey fan putting down golf. Thank you very little.

[Guia]

I do watch the LPGA regularly, but with the sporadic play of the Americans I have been losing interest.
The Asian players are like machines, no variance in their swing, fairways and greens.

As far as the Champions Tour I would like to see someone dominate so there would be someone to root for
or against. I thought VJ might be the man but he has started slow.

I noticed that when Phil teed off today the "Bababoohey" yell did not have a lot of enthusiasm, maybe that and "Mashed Potatoes" are losing ground.

[tstephen]

Now we just need Rory back to 100%, Jordan having great sophomore season, and Tiger behaving like today. He looked focused and was having fun. A combination that will help him win more majors. That was the combination Phil used to win his first major and pretty much the other 4.

In other sports news Kareem just said The Big O was greatest ever in the NBA.

[Brock Savage]

Well, it's over. I had to back it up and replay it several times to be sure, but no, my ears did not deceive me --- Brandel Chamblee just called Tiger the GOAT.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1380934686' post='7954615']
Well, it's over. I had to back it up and replay it several times to be sure, but no, my ears did not deceive me --- Brandel Chamblee just called Tiger the GOAT.
[/quote]

It's all because his 10 year old son is a super Tiger fan. Imagine how silly all the Brandel haters feel knowing these 2 facts now.

I am sticking with Jack. I hope Stenson has a monster year in 2014 and wins multiple times & majors. He was the best ball striker all year. Finally, at the end of the year he won and won big. Tiger did not. Tiger is more of a Seve, Watson, Phil type golfer who has to rely on a great short game. On the other hand Stenson is more of a Nicklaus, Hogan, Nelson guy who does not, relying on great ball striking. I love watching great clutch and/or incredible saves around the greens. But watching someone in total control tee to green for an entire tournament along with great length off the tee cannot be matched.

I would like to see more drivers off the tee and the tour widen the fairways 300+ off the tee and maybe make them more narrow 270- off the tee. It is getting to be more of a surprise when a guy actually takes driver off the tee anymore. I like the decision of the long putters, but it took way too long(literally) for them to decide. Finchem is wasting his time on the issue of call-ins regarding a rules violation and should turn his efforts into making golf as exciting to watch as possible. Par 4s that can be reached with a driver are fun and every course on tour should practically force all players to hit driver 10 times a round. First round pairing ideas recently have also been great for the game.

[tgss]

This always is a fun thread to check in with from time to time and I see from a few pages of the latest posts that it always comes to a relevant debate on Tiger vs Jack with numbers to "back up"
a claim. There is no conclusive winner since Tiger is still playing and a host of there subjective
variables.
Rather then continue to beat this dead horse, morph the thread to discuss : "Who is/was better for
the game of golf..Tiger or Jack ??? " That would bring out some interesting conversations !

[tstephen]

It was Tiger right out of the gate saying he wanted to break Jack's record. He backed up that statement with all of his wins in more than incredible fashion. All of this was great for the game of golf. Now, after the soap opera, he is back on top but now has a host of young players that could potentially be greats of the game. Good luck Tiger. I think the fact that he is still the pursuer makes the majors more interesting. I still say if Tiger's rookie year was 2009, the golf world would have him one of the best without a major. A label that has not worked well for Donald, Westwood, Sergio, Brandt, and Kuchar.

Jack's record is the best thing in and for the game of golf.

[isaacbm]

I've always follow these threads because I like a good debate.

I think too many people confuse the "best golfers" with the golfers with the "best record." It much easier to have a great resume when you're playing against less people. It always comes down to that for me. Don't you think it was easier for the Montreal Canadians to win a million Cups when there were only 6 teams in the league??

Jacks competition were not "better" players, they simply lived in a time when it was easier to accumulate wins. Does that mean they "knew how to win more"? or does that mean they "simply won more?" I don't know for sure.

As many have said in this thread, it seems strange to imagine that golf is the only arena in the history of physical achievement where people's physical ability has somehow gotten worse.

My logic always goes here: In a time when golf is more global, there is more money to draw great prodigies in, there is better training, better fitness, better nutrition, better understanding of mechanics, better equipment, better everything!! Somehow the competition is worse. Does that make sense?????

The simple way of looking at it is that in Jacks time, more people won multiple majors. That means in Jacks time, it was easier to win multiple majors. Simple as that.

[tstephen]

I don't remember anyone saying that players have gotten worse. There are more tour caliber players today without a doubt. The past did have many more tour caliber players than Tiger worshipper's think but not the tours of today to play. The argument has been how many greats Tiger has had to beat vs Jack. Whatever reason there were more greats in Jack's era does not matter. He lost 8 majors to just 2 guys. That's the toughest competition.

Also, the coverage of Jack was not there like it is for Tiger. The tee on 14 they are using at The President's Cup is the same tee Jack would use in practice to prepare for majors driving the green with consistency. Even with today's drivers and balls they are hitting driver and Jack was in his 40's with persimmon and balata golf balls.

[tstephen]

[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1380988719' post='7956559']
I've always follow these threads because I like a good debate.

I think too many people confuse the "best golfers" with the golfers with the "best record." It much easier to have a great resume when you're playing against less people. It always comes down to that for me. Don't you think it was easier for the Montreal Canadians to win a million Cups when there were only 6 teams in the league??

Jacks competition were not "better" players, they simply lived in a time when it was easier to accumulate wins. Does that mean they "knew how to win more"? or does that mean they "simply won more?" I don't know for sure.

As many have said in this thread, it seems strange to imagine that golf is the only arena in the history of physical achievement where people's physical ability has somehow gotten worse.

My logic always goes here: In a time when golf is more global, there is more money to draw great prodigies in, there is better training, better fitness, better nutrition, better understanding of mechanics, better equipment, better everything!! Somehow the competition is worse. Does that make sense?????

The simple way of looking at it is that in Jacks time, more people won multiple majors. That means in Jacks time, it was easier to win multiple majors. Simple as that.
[/quote]

Not so simple. I am a top 3 guy in majors less you forget. So with Tiger's competition Phil has 20, Ernie 15 and Jack's competition Arnie has 19, Watson and Player 18. Trevino and Casper had only 9 and 8 respectively. You have guys without a major win but more top 3's today than from Jack's era. This equals guys not having the ability to close the deal when in or near the lead. Crampton comes to mind as the guy with the most near majors in Jack's era without a win, but guess what, he finished 2nd to Jack 4 times.

[vman]

From a record perspective it will always be Jack unless Tiger can tie 18 Majors.

[nochct1]

[quote name='vman' timestamp='1381335230' post='7975931']
From a record perspective it will always be Jack unless Tiger can tie 18 Majors.
[/quote]

And Jack of course will have to get some more wins to catch up to Tiger in the wins category.

T[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1380989503' post='7956613']
I don't remember anyone saying that players have gotten worse. There are more tour caliber players today without a doubt. The past did have many more tour caliber players than Tiger worshipper's think but not the tours of today to play. The argument has been how many greats Tiger has had to beat vs Jack. Whatever reason there were more greats in Jack's era does not matter. He lost 8 majors to just 2 guys. That's the toughest competition.

Also, the coverage of Jack was not there like it is for Tiger. The tee on 14 they are using at The President's Cup is the same tee Jack would use in practice to prepare for majors driving the green with consistency. Even with today's drivers and balls they are hitting driver and Jack was in his 40's with persimmon and balata golf balls.
[/quote]

The fact that he lost 8 majors to just 2 guys means that there were less players capable of winning than there is now. Its very simple, if there are more talented players from top to bottom, then there odds of the top players winning decreases. If there are less talented players from top to bottom, then the top players increase their odds of winning.

You seem to ignore the fact that it was easier to win multiple majors in Jack's day because there were less players capable of winning a major. The game is global now and there are more players who can win.

As for equipment, its an equalizer now. The elite players now would probably do better if the equipment wasn't so forgiving.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1381339073' post='7976251']
You seem to ignore the fact that it was easier to win multiple majors in Jack's day because there were less players capable of winning a major. The game is global now and there are more players who can win.
[/quote]

You would think that with all the ragging about Tiger's Ryder Cup record from Jack fans, they would be able to see the analogy.

Until 1979, the Ryder Cup was the US against the Brits, which was a huge mismatch in talent pools. Irish golfers were allowed to join the strictly British team in the late 1940's, but that didn't make much difference. Not surprisingly, the US dominated, with the Brits winning only once after 1933, and usually losing badly. Even the stodgy R&A realized that something had to be done to make it more competitive.

They finally opened it up to continental Europe in 1979. That made the number of truly world class golfers on each team closer to equal, and guess what, the US has only won 7 of 17 RCs since then. Which is why it's just as misleading to compare Ryder Cup records of the Jack era and today as it is to compare majors.

It's not complicated. It's a lot easier to win majors if only about half of the world top 100 is in the field, than if almost all of the top 100 is in the field. And it wasn't until the late 70's or later) that almost all of the top 100 were in the field for most majors.

[tstephen]

I finally looked up Bobby Locke's PGA tour career. He played 2.5 years in 59 events and won 11. Oh yeah, that was shortly after some other guy named Byron won that many consecutively and retired. Locke only looks really great when you add his 2nd place finishes(10) and top 4's 34. He won 4 British Opens. According to Brock, British Opens were a total joke prior to the 70's and 2nd and top 4's are meaningless. So we are left with a guy who would go a 100 rounds with 1 single 3 putt. That may make him the best putter ever. As far as his record, it would be hard to put him in an overall top 25 and barred or not he remains the David Duval of his era.

Brock got his heart broken when Jack came along to ruin things for the self appointed general of the Army.
Then, Tiger is going to dust Jack's record, but again fate has broken his heart. Jack haters are sad people.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381371611' post='7979033']
Brock got his heart broken when Jack came along to ruin things for the self appointed general of the Army.
Then, Tiger is going to dust Jack's record, but again fate has broken his heart. Jack haters are sad people.
[/quote]

This thread is supposed to be about great golfers. I am not flattered by your obsession with me, and it is off topic.

[vman]

Nothing to do with Nicklaus/Woods records or Hogan like ball striking I just know in my heart that Seve was the greatest male player to ever walk a golf course.

[bwrichmond]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381371611' post='7979033']
[b]I finally looked up Bobby Locke's PGA tour career. He played 2.5 years in 59 events and won 11.[/b] Oh yeah, that was shortly after some other guy named Byron won that many consecutively and retired.[b] Locke only looks really great when you add his 2nd place finishes(10) and top 4's 34.[/b] He won 4 British Opens. According to Brock, British Opens were a total joke prior to the 70's and 2nd and top 4's are meaningless. So we are left with a guy who would go a 100 rounds with 1 single 3 putt. That may make him the best putter ever. As far as his record, it would be hard to put him in an overall top 25 and barred or not he remains the David Duval of his era.
[/quote]

Without looking at Locke's 2nd's and top 4 finishes, 11 wins in 59 events = 18.6%. Your hero's 73 wins in 586 events = 12.5% If Locke is not in the top 25 than Jack's not in the top 50.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1381376245' post='7979341']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381371611' post='7979033']
Brock got his heart broken when Jack came along to ruin things for the self appointed general of the Army.
Then, Tiger is going to dust Jack's record, but again fate has broken his heart. Jack haters are sad people.
[/quote]

From the narcissism king I will take that as a compliment. Truth hurts too!
What a pathetic cry for attention.
[/quote]

[bwrichmond]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381414171' post='7980907']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1381376245' post='7979341']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381371611' post='7979033']
Brock got his heart broken when Jack came along to ruin things for the self appointed general of the Army.
Then, Tiger is going to dust Jack's record, but again fate has broken his heart. Jack haters are sad people.
[/quote]

From the narcissism king I will take that as a compliment. Truth hurts too!
What a pathetic cry for attention.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Finally, he's speechless.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='bwrichmond' timestamp='1381414345' post='7980925']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381414171' post='7980907']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1381376245' post='7979341']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381371611' post='7979033']
Brock got his heart broken when Jack came along to ruin things for the self appointed general of the Army.
Then, Tiger is going to dust Jack's record, but again fate has broken his heart. Jack haters are sad people.
[/quote]

From the narcissism king I will take that as a compliment. Truth hurts too!
What a pathetic cry for attention.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Finally, he's speechless.
[/quote]

No, just incompetent.

[creecool]

Pick the Top 10 major winners from their repective era Tiger Mickelson with 5, Els with 4, Singh and Harrington with 3, Mcilroy, Cabrera, Goosen, Omeara, and Olazabel with 2. Match that against Player with 9, Watson with 8, Palmer with 7, Trevino with 6, Ballesteros and Peter Thompson with 5,Floyd with 4, Casper and Irwin with 3, Miller with 2. If I'm in a Ryder Cup with the players in Nicklaus era, I'm taking that to the bank........

[nochct1]

[quote name='creecool' timestamp='1381415227' post='7981023']
Pick the Top 10 major winners from their repective era Tiger Mickelson with 5, Els with 4, Singh and Harrington with 3, Mcilroy, Cabrera, Goosen, Omeara, and Olazabel with 2. Match that against Player with 9, Watson with 8, Palmer with 7, Trevino with 6, Ballesteros and Peter Thompson with 5,Floyd with 4, Casper and Irwin with 3, Miller with 2. If I'm in a Ryder Cup with the players in Nicklaus era, I'm taking that to the bank........
[/quote]

Yeah, Arnie really dominated those majors in the 70s. He was at the end of his career as Jack was getting started. And Jack is 10 years older than Watson. 4 of Seve's majors were won in the early 80s, when Jack was in his 40s! Why not just throw Nick Faldo on Tiger's "team".

And I'll ask again. Do you think that it was easier or harder to win majors back then? Golf was not global in Jacks era (300 people at Q school when Watson qualified, now there are thousands trying to qualify). Can you please explain how it was harder for Jack to win since the talent wasn't as strong top to bottom?

Its very simple. If there are 10 players capable of wining majors then the odds of someone winning multiple majors increases. If there are 50 players capable of winning majors, then the odds of someone winning multiple majors decrease.

[tstephen]

Is this Golfwrx or gerber baby alley?

Just read "10 greatest individual years in golf"

Lord Byron's 1945 is #1 and 2000 for Tiger #2

Ben Hogan is the only player with 3 of the 10

Arnie has as many as Tiger

Jack and Bobby only once but I have always stood by the fact of their ultimate greatness in the consistency of their entire careers.

[nochct1]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381416991' post='7981185']
Is this Golfwrx or gerber baby alley?

Just read "10 greatest individual years in golf"

Lord Byron's 1945 is #1 and 2000 for Tiger #2

Ben Hogan is the only player with 3 of the 10

Arnie has as many as Tiger

Jack and Bobby only once but I have always stood by the fact of their ultimate greatness in the consistency of their entire careers.
[/quote]

Simple question that you've yet to answer. Is there more talent from top to bottom on tour now, or back in the 50s, 60s, 70s?

If you think that Jack had to face a deeper talent pool, then can you try to explain how the PGA Tour was somehow able to produce a deeper talent pool back then, while every other major sport produces deeper talent pools now?

Also, do you agree that if there are more players capable in winning, then the odds of someone winning multiple majors decrease? Or does that not apply to golf?

[turtleback]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1381376245' post='7979341']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381371611' post='7979033']
Brock got his heart broken when Jack came along to ruin things for the self appointed general of the Army.
Then, Tiger is going to dust Jack's record, but again fate has broken his heart. Jack haters are sad people.
[/quote]

What a pathetic cry for attention.
[/quote]


[color=#282828]That is right there with it. Comparing Locke, with Duval is absurd. Which puts it right in Tsteph's wheelhouse.[/color][

[sefus12]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1379646985' post='7881319']
[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.
[/quote]

I don't necessarily think Tiger is a sore loser, he just hates losing. Just because he doesn't give the guy a hug and smile at him while ordering him a drink doesn't make him a sore loser. I think some people blur the distinction between being a sore loser and simply hating losing. I don't really see anything wrong with not being happy after being so close to winning and not getting it done. Just my opinion though.