Greatest male player ever

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='sefus12' timestamp='1381419225' post='7981363']
[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.
[/quote]

Going out on a limb here, but I think Brock was making fun of tstephen about how Jack lost more than Tiger. I think it had to do with tstephen going on about 2nd and 3rd place finishes, which as we all know are 1st and 2nd place losers.

[tstephen]

The saddest thing an athlete can do is call second place first loser. Second place in a major championship is an awesome accomplishment, just ask Phil. Sure he would trade 1 US Open win for all 6 runner-ups. And once again, Phil is by far #2 in Tiger's era. An era that is pitifully weak unless you talk about Phil's 6 runner-ups in The US Open. Either Brock is a sad pitiful wannabe athlete or not an athlete at all. He is king of opinions.

[sefus12]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381421758' post='7981553']
The saddest thing an athlete can do is call second place first loser. Second place in a major championship is an awesome accomplishment, just ask Phil. Sure he would trade 1 US Open win for all 6 runner-ups. And once again, Phil is by far #2 in Tiger's era. An era that is pitifully weak unless you talk about Phil's 6 runner-ups in The US Open. Either Brock is a sad pitiful wannabe athlete or not an athlete at all. He is king of opinions.
[/quote]

I'm not going to argue with you too much (as you've proven to EVERYONE that you have far too much free time on your hands), but the fact that you are calling the Tiger era of golf "pitifully weak" should almost make your arguments invalid.

[tstephen]

Pitifully weak in a winning is the only thing that matters era.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381426314' post='7981861']
Pitifully weak in a winning is the only thing that matters era.
[/quote]

More tournaments have been won in the last 10 years than in any 10 years prior to that and certainly more than in the 60s and 70s.

[tstephen]

Way more tournaments but so few players with more than 6 career wins.

[bwrichmond]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381429066' post='7982069']
Way more tournaments but so few players with more than 6 career wins.
[/quote]
Because they've had to compete against the GOAT.

[sefus12]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381429066' post='7982069']
Way more tournaments but so few players with more than 6 career wins.
[/quote]

You can argue that Tiger is winning because there aren't many good players, but it's a lot more logical to say that there aren't as many multi-time winners because more people in the field are capable of winning a tournament. As others have noted, golf has grown in popularity and that leads to greater total strengths of fields. When that happens you have more people winning. It's easy to recognize that you won't be swayed from your opinion one bit, but the simple truth is that more people capable of winning a tourney means less multi-time winners.

[tstephen]

More guys win and then fall out of competing altogether. There are so many Duvals in today's game it is pitiful. They are not scaring top 10s except once in a great while and Tiger has nothing to do with it. Must be something in the water today. Rory needs a few top 3's early next year or he will be youngest victim yet.

[dangolf]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381437117' post='7982975']
More guys win and then fall out of competing altogether. There are so many Duvals in today's game it is pitiful. They are not scaring top 10s except once in a great while and Tiger has nothing to do with it. Must be something in the water today. Rory needs a few top 3's early next year or he will be youngest victim yet.
[/quote]that's probably because todays competition is so much more competitive and a lot harder to win. back in the turn of the century when jack or whatever his name is was playing you could be an below average player and win multiple times a year. now a days if your a below average player your playing on the golf channel am tour, simple as that.

[tstephen]

If a guy is a top 10 player he should be able to get 4-5 top 3's in 1 year. Anyone who can do this for 10 years is a superstar. And yes Brock 40-50 top 3's will yield a minimum of 10 wins and maybe a couple majors. So Rory was prematurely designated as a superstar. It is his level of play that went south and the tougher competition had little to do with that fact. If he picks up his play having only 1 top 3 finish this year to the level I mentioned and continues into his 30's he will be a true star. Rory's potential is better than all but a couple of guys out there. Possibly the best. If he is unable to perform well next year, the greater numbers in competition of today's game will have very little if any reason for Rory's continued demise.

[isaacbm]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381437117' post='7982975']
More guys win and then fall out of competing altogether. There are so many Duvals in today's game it is pitiful. They are not scaring top 10s except once in a great while and Tiger has nothing to do with it. Must be something in the water today. Rory needs a few top 3's early next year or he will be youngest victim yet.
[/quote]

Sorry, what are you talking about? Duval had 13 wins and a major...

"There are so many duvals it's pitiful"?

Can't think of one "Duval" in today's game....

I assume you're saying players win a bit and then fall away but nobody's done anything like Duval before flaming out...

A closer comparison to Duval would be Johnny miller

[bscinstnct]

Nobody from the old days beats TW is his prime

Nobody.

Who is the best golfer to ever walk the planet Earth?

Tiger Woods.

(Watching this Giants/ CHI game, little

Jacked up

No pun intended ; )

[tstephen]

Duuuhhhh Bears

Lord Byron's course record in The 1937 Masters 66 with 2 more putts than shots, along with his 1945 season of 11 straight and 18 in one year and a scoring record finally surpassed 55 years later at his best.
It would be like Sweetness and Gallopin Gayle at their best, better than Tiger.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381429066' post='7982069']
Way more tournaments but so few players with more than 6 career wins.
[/quote]

Can you possibly be so obtuse as to not realize that this is the PROOF of how much more competition there is now than back in the day?

[tstephen]

Not when guys consistently go from the top to not even being in contention. In contention means top 3's and several top 10's. A guy has more talent but becomes less competitive with much worse stats. How is this just not on the player?

[sefus12]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381492382' post='7985957']
Not when guys consistently go from the top to not even being in contention. In contention means top 3's and several top 10's. A guy has more talent but becomes less competitive with much worse stats. How is this just not on the player?
[/quote]

That's not because guys are "flaming out". That's because a half stroke increase in your scoring average can take you from 30th on tour to 67th on tour. 168 players had an adjusted scoring average under 72 this year, 91 of which were under 71. For comparison there were 60 guys with a scoring average under 72 in 1980, 10 of which were under 71. When you have as many guys competing at such a high level, there's an incredibly small margin of error. In layman's terms, it's a lot easier to fall from the top now than it was back then. The spread between 1st and 125th in scoring average was 2.3 strokes in 2013. That same spread was 2.96 strokes in 1980. That means the guys in 1980, on average, had 2.6 strokes to play with over 72 holes to remain in the top 125 than they do now days. Over 18 holes, that's the difference between 51st and 111th on this year's money list.

[nochct1]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381492382' post='7985957']
Not when guys consistently go from the top to not even being in contention. In contention means top 3's and several top 10's. A guy has more talent but becomes less competitive with much worse stats. How is this just not on the player?
[/quote]

So the talent from top to bottom was better in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80? The PGA tour wasn't global at the time and wasn't even that popular (Watson competed with 300 people to get on tour). Now players compete with thousands.

It's obvious at this point that you are trolling, but it will be fun to keep playing along.

[tstephen]

Those thousands sure are not helping the international team. US golf has fewer greats.

[sefus12]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381500531' post='7986543']
Those thousands sure are not helping the international team. US golf has fewer greats.
[/quote]

Can you please respond to my post above? If today's generation is statistically closer in talent level than that of years past (and I'm guessing the spread would be even better if PGATour.com had stats further back than 1980), how is it not harder to win multiple tourneys in a year/career? If you add more people capable of winning any given week (which the stats show), how does that not make it harder to dominate? You can say that it means the talent level is down, but facts show the talent level is actually much deeper.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='sefus12' timestamp='1381500987' post='7986573']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381500531' post='7986543']
Those thousands sure are not helping the international team. US golf has fewer greats.
[/quote]

Can you please respond to my post above? If today's generation is statistically closer in talent level than that of years past (and I'm guessing the spread would be even better if PGATour.com had stats further back than 1980), how is it not harder to win multiple tourneys in a year/career? If you add more people capable of winning any given week (which the stats show), how does that not make it harder to dominate? You can say that it means the talent level is down, but facts show the talent level is actually much deeper.
[/quote]

tstephen thinks that the fact that Tiger has been beaten/pushed to the wire by Bob May, Michael Campbell, Rich Beem and YE Yang, while Jack lost to Watson and Trevino implies that players these days aren't as good. I think you'll be doing well to get a legible answer, let alone a logical one.

[tstephen]

Just off the top of my head I looked at the 1981 US Ryder Cup team. Please, give me a break. We will never have teams with that much talent again.

[turtleback]

[quote name='sefus12' timestamp='1381500987' post='7986573']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381500531' post='7986543']
Those thousands sure are not helping the international team. US golf has fewer greats.
[/quote]

Can you please respond to my post above? If today's generation is statistically closer in talent level than that of years past (and I'm guessing the spread would be even better if PGATour.com had stats further back than 1980), how is it not harder to win multiple tourneys in a year/career? If you add more people capable of winning any given week (which the stats show), how does that not make it harder to dominate? You can say that it means the talent level is down, but facts show the talent level is actually much deeper.
[/quote]

He never responds to irrefutable points. I am STILL waiting for his list of the specific years in which Nicklaus was dominant. Or his list of Nicklaus's best 15 years in order from best to worst.

He is a troll, but an amusing one who is is kind of fun to make fun of.

[vman]

Nicklaus has the greater Major haul at the moment,but nobody has ever played better golf than Tiger and the depth of competetion is much greater now...no doubt about it.

[isaacbm]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381503473' post='7986779']
Just off the top of my head I looked at the 1981 US Ryder Cup team. Please, give me a break. We will never have teams with that much talent again.
[/quote]

Really? Look at the euro team. Bet there's 5 guys on it you've never heard of. At the time of playing, not one player on the team had ever won a major. Nice COMPETITION!!

[Thunder Dan]

Jack

Until they start moving majors to Bay Hill, Doral, Firestone and Torrey Pines, he isn't going to match Jack's dominance on the sport.

[tstephen]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1381504040' post='7986853']
[quote name='sefus12' timestamp='1381500987' post='7986573']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381500531' post='7986543']
Those thousands sure are not helping the international team. US golf has fewer greats.
[/quote]

Can you please respond to my post above? If today's generation is statistically closer in talent level than that of years past (and I'm guessing the spread would be even better if PGATour.com had stats further back than 1980), how is it not harder to win multiple tourneys in a year/career? If you add more people capable of winning any given week (which the stats show), how does that not make it harder to dominate? You can say that it means the talent level is down, but facts show the talent level is actually much deeper.
[/quote]

He never responds to irrefutable points. I am STILL waiting for his list of the specific years in which Nicklaus was dominant. Or his list of Nicklaus's best 15 years in order from best to worst.

He is a troll, but an amusing one who is is kind of fun to make fun of.
[/quote]

Dude - you need to clean all the pond scum of your turtle back. I have already mentioned how dominant Jack was for at least 20 of 21 years in majors. He had the best record combined in those majors and did not have as long of a dry streak as Tiger is now enjoying until he was well into his 50's.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381510899' post='7987499']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1381504040' post='7986853']
[quote name='sefus12' timestamp='1381500987' post='7986573']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381500531' post='7986543']
Those thousands sure are not helping the international team. US golf has fewer greats.
[/quote]

Can you please respond to my post above? If today's generation is statistically closer in talent level than that of years past (and I'm guessing the spread would be even better if PGATour.com had stats further back than 1980), how is it not harder to win multiple tourneys in a year/career? If you add more people capable of winning any given week (which the stats show), how does that not make it harder to dominate? You can say that it means the talent level is down, but facts show the talent level is actually much deeper.
[/quote]

He never responds to irrefutable points. I am STILL waiting for his list of the specific years in which Nicklaus was dominant. Or his list of Nicklaus's best 15 years in order from best to worst.

He is a troll, but an amusing one who is is kind of fun to make fun of.
[/quote]

Dude - you need to clean all the pond scum of your turtle back. I have already mentioned how dominant Jack was for at least 20 of 21 years in majors. He had the best record combined in those majors and did not have as long of a dry streak as Tiger is now enjoying until he was well into his 50's.
[/quote]

Leaving aside who did it and when and where and against whom, how on earth is it even possible to be dominant in majors in 20 different years when you only win 18 of them?

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381510899' post='7987499']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1381504040' post='7986853']
[quote name='sefus12' timestamp='1381500987' post='7986573']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381500531' post='7986543']
Those thousands sure are not helping the international team. US golf has fewer greats.
[/quote]

Can you please respond to my post above? If today's generation is statistically closer in talent level than that of years past (and I'm guessing the spread would be even better if PGATour.com had stats further back than 1980), how is it not harder to win multiple tourneys in a year/career? If you add more people capable of winning any given week (which the stats show), how does that not make it harder to dominate? You can say that it means the talent level is down, but facts show the talent level is actually much deeper.
[/quote]

He never responds to irrefutable points. I am STILL waiting for his list of the specific years in which Nicklaus was dominant. Or his list of Nicklaus's best 15 years in order from best to worst.

He is a troll, but an amusing one who is is kind of fun to make fun of.
[/quote]

Dude - you need to clean all the pond scum of your turtle back. I have already mentioned how dominant Jack was for at least 20 of 21 years in majors. He had the best record combined in those majors and did not have as long of a dry streak as Tiger is now enjoying until he was well into his 50's.
[/quote]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381510899' post='7987499']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1381504040' post='7986853']
[quote name='sefus12' timestamp='1381500987' post='7986573']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381500531' post='7986543']
Those thousands sure are not helping the international team. US golf has fewer greats.
[/quote]

Can you please respond to my post above? If today's generation is statistically closer in talent level than that of years past (and I'm guessing the spread would be even better if PGATour.com had stats further back than 1980), how is it not harder to win multiple tourneys in a year/career? If you add more people capable of winning any given week (which the stats show), how does that not make it harder to dominate? You can say that it means the talent level is down, but facts show the talent level is actually much deeper.
[/quote]

He never responds to irrefutable points. I am STILL waiting for his list of the specific years in which Nicklaus was dominant. Or his list of Nicklaus's best 15 years in order from best to worst.

He is a troll, but an amusing one who is is kind of fun to make fun of.
[/quote]

Dude - you need to clean all the pond scum of your turtle back. I have already mentioned how dominant Jack was for at least 20 of 21 years in majors. He had the best record combined in those majors and [b]did not have as long of a dry streak as Tiger is now enjoying until he was well into his 50's.[/b]
[/quote]I guess you're resorting to just making stuff up now. No dry streak like Tiger's until he was 50? Tiger's dry streak is 5 years, the same as the gap between Jack's 17th (when Jack was 40) and his 18th (when Jack was 46).

Even if you want to continue your idiotic obsession with top 10s, that statement still makes no sense. Jack made 7 top 10s between his 17th and 18th majors. Tiger has had 9.

Jack made no top 10s in 1984, made one in 1985 (and missed the cut in two other majors). Then he made a top 10 in the 1987 US Open, and never had another top 10 in the US Open, British Open, or PGA Championship again for the rest of his career. He had three more top 10s at the Masters in 1987, 1990, and 1998. So I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "well into his 50s".

[tstephen]

[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1381507334' post='7987209']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1381503473' post='7986779']
Just off the top of my head I looked at the 1981 US Ryder Cup team. Please, give me a break. We will never have teams with that much talent again.
[/quote]

Really? Look at the euro team. Bet there's 5 guys on it you've never heard of. At the time of playing, not one player on the team had ever won a major. Nice COMPETITION!!
[/quote]

I was not looking at the Euro Team that booted Seve anyway. The point was 49 majors and Lietzke.