Greatest male player ever

[gusmahler]

People keep saying that Tiger only wins at the same courses. But this article: http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2012-06/jack-nicklaus-tiger-woods-pga-records

says that Jack's 73 wins were at 49 different courses. Tiger's first 73 were at 43 different courses (which is still current, as his last 6 wins were all at courses he's won at before). So the difference is only 6 different tourneys.

Put another way, 43 is more than the career win total of Phil, Tom Watson, Vijay, Trevino, etc.

[tstephen]

Good try again Gus. Tiger has only won 8 different tournaments once and going back to 2000 he has won only 2 tournaments once. He doesn't have a problem saying that Torrey, Bay Hill, Muirfield Village, Doral, and Firestone (Congressional, too) are always going to be on his schedule because of his incredible confidence(green feel) and they are his go to base. Just about everyone knows Tiger's annual schedule and the tournaments that are him vs the field are his base/home courses. Tiger should be 7 to 1 at The Masters and 10 to 1 at best in the other majors.

[tstephen]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1382031121' post='8016399']
People keep saying that Tiger only wins at the same courses. But this article: http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2012-06/jack-nicklaus-tiger-woods-pga-records

says that Jack's 73 wins were at 49 different courses. Tiger's first 73 were at 43 different courses (which is still current, as his last 6 wins were all at courses he's won at before). So the difference is only 6 different tourneys.

Put another way, 43 is more than the career win total of Phil, Tom Watson, Vijay, Trevino, etc.
[/quote][quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1382031121' post='8016399']
People keep saying that Tiger only wins at the same courses. But this article: http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2012-06/jack-nicklaus-tiger-woods-pga-records

says that Jack's 73 wins were at 49 different courses. Tiger's first 73 were at 43 different courses (which is still current, as his last 6 wins were all at courses he's won at before). So the difference is only 6 different tourneys.

Put another way, 43 is more than the career win total of Phil, Tom Watson, Vijay, Trevino, etc.
[/quote]

Explain the last line please. I count only 39 on the web article. Of the multiple course events, he has only played Torrey since 2000. The 43 is just another misleading figure that attempts, but fails, to make Tiger appear to a great diverse talent that can win anywhere.

[gusmahler]

So Tiger has an uncanny ability to remember how to play courses. That's a *bad* thing?

You talk about his "home" course, but then go ahead and list 5 different courses. How can he have 5 "home" courses? How often does he play these "home" courses?

[gusmahler]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1382052355' post='8018165']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1382031121' post='8016399']
People keep saying that Tiger only wins at the same courses. But this article: [url="http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2012-06/jack-nicklaus-tiger-woods-pga-records"]http://www.golfdiges...ods-pga-records[/url]

says that Jack's 73 wins were at 49 different courses. Tiger's first 73 were at 43 different courses (which is still current, as his last 6 wins were all at courses he's won at before). So the difference is only 6 different tourneys.

Put another way, 43 is more than the career win total of Phil, Tom Watson, Vijay, Trevino, etc.
[/quote][quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1382031121' post='8016399']
People keep saying that Tiger only wins at the same courses. But this article: [url="http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2012-06/jack-nicklaus-tiger-woods-pga-records"]http://www.golfdiges...ods-pga-records[/url]

says that Jack's 73 wins were at 49 different courses. Tiger's first 73 were at 43 different courses (which is still current, as his last 6 wins were all at courses he's won at before). So the difference is only 6 different tourneys.

Put another way, 43 is more than the career win total of Phil, Tom Watson, Vijay, Trevino, etc.
[/quote]

Explain the last line please. I count only 39 on the web article. Of the multiple course events, he has only played Torrey since 2000.
[/quote]I didn't count them myself. The article said 43 in page 1. If 43 was mistaken, I'm sorry.

EDIT: I get it. Some of those wins were at multiple course events. E.g., the Las Vegas win was at both the Desert Inn and the Las Vegas Hilton. The article counted each of those courses.

[tstephen]

Knowing how to play and win on certain courses is not a bad thing, it is a great gift, but we are trying to define greatest.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1382031121' post='8016399']
Jack's 73 wins were at 49 different courses. Tiger's first 73 were at 43 different courses (which is still current, as his last 6 wins were all at courses he's won at before). So the difference is only 6 different tourneys.
[/quote]

Thanks for the link.

But there's no reason not to include other major tours. Tiger has 8 Euro Tour wins (not counting the 32 co-sanctioned by the PGA) on 5 different courses, two Japan Tour wins on one course, and an Asian Tour win, for a total of 50 different courses. The only non-PGA major tour event Jack won was the Australian Open, six wins on four different courses, for a total of 53.

Of course, Jack's total includes a couple of team events (with Arnold Palmer as his partner) and the World Series of Golf, with a field of 20, so I'm tempted to add Tiger's World Challenge, just to make it a fair comparison.

But really, it's unbelievable that this is even an issue. Have you ever heard of anyone disparaging Jack's 1986 Masters win, because he had five previous wins at Augusta? I mean, why did they even bother holding the tournament? Jack could win at Augusta in his sleep, right?

[tstephen]

Gary Player has won on over 130 different courses.

[tstephen]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1382054305' post='8018351']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1382031121' post='8016399']
Jack's 73 wins were at 49 different courses. Tiger's first 73 were at 43 different courses (which is still current, as his last 6 wins were all at courses he's won at before). So the difference is only 6 different tourneys.
[/quote]

Thanks for the link.

But there's no reason not to include other major tours. Tiger has 8 Euro Tour wins (not counting the 32 co-sanctioned by the PGA) on 5 different courses, two Japan Tour wins on one course, and an Asian Tour win, for a total of 50 different courses. The only non-PGA major tour event Jack won was the Australian Open, six wins on four different courses, for a total of 53.

Of course, Jack's total includes a couple of team events (with Arnold Palmer as his partner) and the World Series of Golf, with a field of 20, so I'm tempted to add Tiger's World Challenge, just to make it a fair comparison.

But really, it's unbelievable that this is even an issue. Have you ever heard of anyone disparaging Jack's 1986 Masters win, because he had five previous wins at Augusta? I mean, why did they even bother holding the tournament? Jack could win at Augusta in his sleep, right?
[/quote]

Hence the fact he finished 6th(this means he was very competitive) on 1 leg when he was 58 at Augusta.
Nowhere else would Jack been able to finish that high with his very bad hip at that age.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1382052355' post='8018165']
Explain the last line please. I count only 39 on the web article. Of the multiple course events, he has only played Torrey since 2000. The 43 is just another misleading figure that attempts, but fails, to make Tiger appear to a great diverse talent that can win anywhere.
[/quote]

So if you don't understand something, it can't be your fault, so it must be because of a media conspiracy to make Tiger look better?

And these media conspiracies are the reason that stupid, misguided people like me think Tiger is a great talent?

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1382054506' post='8018383']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1382054305' post='8018351']
[quote name='gusmahler' timestamp='1382031121' post='8016399']
Jack's 73 wins were at 49 different courses. Tiger's first 73 were at 43 different courses (which is still current, as his last 6 wins were all at courses he's won at before). So the difference is only 6 different tourneys.
[/quote]

Thanks for the link.

But there's no reason not to include other major tours. Tiger has 8 Euro Tour wins (not counting the 32 co-sanctioned by the PGA) on 5 different courses, two Japan Tour wins on one course, and an Asian Tour win, for a total of 50 different courses. The only non-PGA major tour event Jack won was the Australian Open, six wins on four different courses, for a total of 53.

Of course, Jack's total includes a couple of team events (with Arnold Palmer as his partner) and the World Series of Golf, with a field of 20, so I'm tempted to add Tiger's World Challenge, just to make it a fair comparison.

But really, it's unbelievable that this is even an issue. Have you ever heard of anyone disparaging Jack's 1986 Masters win, because he had five previous wins at Augusta? I mean, why did they even bother holding the tournament? Jack could win at Augusta in his sleep, right?
[/quote]

Hence the fact he finished 6th(this means he was very competitive) on 1 leg when he was 58 at Augusta.
Nowhere else would Jack been able to finish that high with his very bad hip at that age.
[/quote]

Well then, I guess I have a higher opinion of Jack's talent than you do.

By the way, Sam Snead had top ten finishes in the PGA Championship at age 60 (T4), 61 (T9), and 62 (T3) at courses in Michigan, Ohio, and North Carolina. Which of those was his home course?

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1382054406' post='8018371']
Gary Player has won on over 130 different courses.
[/quote]

So have I. They weren't major tour events, but neither were most of Gary's. But if you can count the Joburg Muni, then I guess I can count a five dollar Nassau.

Edit: I can't live with myself. I confess that my previous statement was another misleading figure that attempts, but fails, to make me appear to be a great diverse talent that can win anywhere.

[tstephen]

Tiger warms up with his 8 iron and 4 iron just like his idol Jack.
Too bad Tiger didn't follow Jack's lead for a long time coach and wife.
I would be talking about his greatness more than Brock.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1382058521' post='8018813']
Tiger warms up with his 8 iron and 4 iron just like his idol Jack.
Too bad Tiger didn't follow Jack's lead for a long time coach and wife.
I would be talking about his greatness more than Brock.
[/quote]

You already do talk about his greatness more than Brock...

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1382054305' post='8018351']
Thanks for the link.

But there's no reason not to include other major tours. Tiger has 8 Euro Tour wins (not counting the 32 co-sanctioned by the PGA) on 5 different courses, two Japan Tour wins on one course, and an Asian Tour win, for a total of 50 different courses. The only non-PGA major tour event Jack won was the Australian Open, six wins on four different courses, for a total of 53.

Of course, Jack's total includes a couple of team events (with Arnold Palmer as his partner) and the World Series of Golf, with a field of 20, so I'm tempted to add Tiger's World Challenge, just to make it a fair comparison.
[/quote]

Tiger's last win in 2009 before his "incident" was in Australia no? The JB Were Masters at Kingston Heath. Is that another one?

[Brock Savage]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1382065591' post='8019525']
[quote name='Brock Savage' timestamp='1382054305' post='8018351']
Thanks for the link.

But there's no reason not to include other major tours. Tiger has 8 Euro Tour wins (not counting the 32 co-sanctioned by the PGA) on 5 different courses, two Japan Tour wins on one course, and an Asian Tour win, for a total of 50 different courses. The only non-PGA major tour event Jack won was the Australian Open, six wins on four different courses, for a total of 53.

Of course, Jack's total includes a couple of team events (with Arnold Palmer as his partner) and the World Series of Golf, with a field of 20, so I'm tempted to add Tiger's World Challenge, just to make it a fair comparison.
[/quote]

Tiger's last win in 2009 before his "incident" was in Australia no? The JB Were Masters at Kingston Heath. Is that another one?
[/quote]

No, that was one of his 8 Euro Tour wins (co-sanctioned, as were his Johnnie Walker wins in Thailand).

[tstephen]

So how are Gary Player's worldwide wins not important? He sure thinks they add up to the greatest record. And he just said Tiger would have won The Masters if not for the flagstick on 15.

Not to mention - how come Kareem does not get ripped on for saying The Big O is THE GOAT of basketball?

[tstephen]

Resurrection for Halloween. I was considering the top 10 players from Tiger's era vs the top 10 from Jack's.

Jack's top 10: Watson, Arnie, Player, Trevino, Seve, Casper, Floyd, Miller, Irwin, Crenshaw.

Tiger's top 10: Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Scott, Rory, Furyk, Duval, Sergio, Love, Rose.

A) Tiger's group still has a lot to prove with Rory, Scott, Rose, and Sergio.
B) Jack's group 50 majors vs Tiger's group with 19(1 more than Jack).
C) Tiger's era tougher to win majors with deeper fields vs Jack's era of the toughest competitors.
D) Jack's group had: 5 short game legends(Watson, Player, Trevino, Seve, & Floyd).
3 putting legends(Arnie, Casper, & Crenshaw).
Miller might be the best iron player ever in his prime.
Irwin the best fairway wood player ever.

Tiger's group combined with Jack's top 10 toughest competitors: Watson, Trevino, Floyd, Irwin, Seve, Casper, Player, Palmer, Phil, and take your pick for #10. It could be Crenshaw or Miller just as easily as anyone of the 9 players left from Tiger's era & that's my point.

[Lennon Mccartney]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1383278410' post='8087048']
Resurrection for Halloween. I was considering the top 10 players from Tiger's era vs the top 10 from Jack's.

Jack's top 10: Watson, Arnie, Player, Trevino, Seve, Casper, Floyd, Miller, Irwin, Crenshaw.

Tiger's top 10: Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Scott, Rory, Furyk, Duval, Sergio, Love, Rose.

A) Tiger's group still has a lot to prove with Rory, Scott, Rose, and Sergio.
B) Jack's group 50 majors vs Tiger's group with 19(1 more than Jack).
C) Tiger's era tougher to win majors with deeper fields vs Jack's era of the toughest competitors.
D) Jack's group had: 5 short game legends(Watson, Player, Trevino, Seve, & Floyd).
3 putting legends(Arnie, Casper, & Crenshaw).
Miller might be the best iron player ever in his prime.
Irwin the best fairway wood player ever.

Tiger's group combined with Jack's top 10 toughest competitors: Watson, Trevino, Floyd, Irwin, Seve, Casper, Player, Palmer, Phil, and take your pick for #10. It could be Crenshaw or Miller just as easily as anyone of the 9 players left from Tiger's era & that's my point.
[/quote]
Let it go man..let it go

[tstephen]

Don't you mean "Let It Be"? Anyway I got hammered on the driving range by some other guys my age saying I was way too easy on the younger generation and so are most TV commentators. We all concluded that none of these young guys have had the struggles of players from the past and are total wimps when it comes to being tough competitors. It's the 50lbs of ice 2 miles throught the snow type of deal. I do like Keegan and Jordan Spieth as real tough types of competitors today.

[sonny crocket]

Jay Don Blake

[playa]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1382054406' post='8018371']
Gary Player has won on over 130 different courses.
[/quote]
But how many of those wins involved the old trouser ball?

[nochct1]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1383278410' post='8087048']
Resurrection for Halloween. I was considering the top 10 players from Tiger's era vs the top 10 from Jack's.

Jack's top 10: Watson, Arnie, Player, Trevino, Seve, Casper, Floyd, Miller, Irwin, Crenshaw.

Tiger's top 10: Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Scott, Rory, Furyk, Duval, Sergio, Love, Rose.

A) Tiger's group still has a lot to prove with Rory, Scott, Rose, and Sergio.
B) Jack's group 50 majors vs Tiger's group with 19(1 more than Jack).
C) Tiger's era tougher to win majors with deeper fields vs Jack's era of the toughest competitors.
D) Jack's group had: 5 short game legends(Watson, Player, Trevino, Seve, & Floyd).
3 putting legends(Arnie, Casper, & Crenshaw).
Miller might be the best iron player ever in his prime.
Irwin the best fairway wood player ever.

Tiger's group combined with Jack's top 10 toughest competitors: Watson, Trevino, Floyd, Irwin, Seve, Casper, Player, Palmer, Phil, and take your pick for #10. It could be Crenshaw or Miller just as easily as anyone of the 9 players left from Tiger's era & that's my point.
[/quote]

You seem to good at counting things. You should back back through this thread and see how many people actually agree with you.

[nochct1]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1383326511' post='8088820']
Don't you mean "Let It Be"? Anyway I got hammered on the driving range by some other guys my age saying I was way too easy on the younger generation and so are most TV commentators. We all concluded that none of these young guys have had the struggles of players from the past and are total wimps when it comes to being tough competitors. It's the 50lbs of ice 2 miles throught the snow type of deal. I do like Keegan and Jordan Spieth as real tough types of competitors today.
[/quote]

Are how are they supposed to change that? When offered money from sponsors should they turn it down? And I can see how easy it can be for an American player. It's not like there are thousands of players from all over the world trying to get a spot on tour? Definitely not like it jack's day when there were a few hundred people trying to get on tour.
Maybe we can all sit back and you can tell us the story of Jack and Tom Watson and how they found a club while searching for food in the junkyard. They battled the tough streets, the temptations of crime and finally after years of neglect from their parents, they made it out on tour. Isn't that how it was for them?

[playa]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1383278410' post='8087048']
Resurrection for Halloween. I was considering the top 10 players from Tiger's era vs the top 10 from Jack's.

Jack's top 10: Watson, Arnie, Player, Trevino, Seve, Casper, Floyd, Miller, Irwin, Crenshaw.

Tiger's top 10: Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Scott, Rory, Furyk, Duval, Sergio, Love, Rose.

A) Tiger's group still has a lot to prove with Rory, Scott, Rose, and Sergio.
B) Jack's group 50 majors vs Tiger's group with 19(1 more than Jack).
C) Tiger's era tougher to win majors with deeper fields vs Jack's era of the toughest competitors.
D) Jack's group had: 5 short game legends(Watson, Player, Trevino, Seve, & Floyd).
3 putting legends(Arnie, Casper, & Crenshaw).
Miller might be the best iron player ever in his prime.
Irwin the best fairway wood player ever.

Tiger's group combined with Jack's top 10 toughest competitors: Watson, Trevino, Floyd, Irwin, Seve, Casper, Player, Palmer, Phil, and take your pick for #10. It could be Crenshaw or Miller just as easily as anyone of the 9 players left from Tiger's era & that's my point.
[/quote]
Speculating about golfers from different eras is pointless. Your argument has merit, however it can and has been just as easily argued that the reason for these greats from Jacks era was the lack of depth in fields in those days. One thing is certain; golf is now more main stream and lucrative than in Jacks day and would definitely be attracting higher quality athletes who would have played other sports in bygone years. So if it can be agreed that the general level of competition is higher these days, at least from an athletic viewpoint, it is hard to argue that those old golfers like Jack would enjoy the same careers if they came along now. Not to mention the dedication to training, sports science and practice of modern players. Back in the day most of the fields were in the bar partying while Jack was hitting balls and Player was doing sit ups. Now everyone works hard. If Jack came along now he would be facing entire fields who are just as prepared as he would be, and many who are physically superior to him. If Player came along now he wouldnt make the mini tours with his lack of length.

[tstephen]

Look - even Lee Janzen said money games toughened him up. Problem is today's money on tour is so great that a guy can get rich with a few top 10's every year and does not even have to win. Most have never experienced putting their own money on the line. And all of the masses that support what I say in my posts are out in the real world and not the world of these pitiful threads.

[nochct1]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1383425626' post='8093220']
Look - even Lee Janzen said money games toughened him up. Problem is today's money on tour is so great that a guy can get rich with a few top 10's every year and does not even have to win. Most have never experienced putting their own money on the line. And all of the masses that support what I say in my posts are out in the real world and not the world of these pitiful threads.
[/quote]

They do play money games. They just play for more now. And if you think that these guys are ok with making some cash for a few years and expecting that they can support themselves on that for the next 50 years while out of golf then you really are delusional.

So the masses that support you aren't in the pitiful thread that you continue to post in? This has pretty much become your thread. What does that say about you?

[tstephen]

[quote name='playa' timestamp='1383425495' post='8093212']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1383278410' post='8087048']
Resurrection for Halloween. I was considering the top 10 players from Tiger's era vs the top 10 from Jack's.

Jack's top 10: Watson, Arnie, Player, Trevino, Seve, Casper, Floyd, Miller, Irwin, Crenshaw.

Tiger's top 10: Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Scott, Rory, Furyk, Duval, Sergio, Love, Rose.

A) Tiger's group still has a lot to prove with Rory, Scott, Rose, and Sergio.
B) Jack's group 50 majors vs Tiger's group with 19(1 more than Jack).
C) Tiger's era tougher to win majors with deeper fields vs Jack's era of the toughest competitors.
D) Jack's group had: 5 short game legends(Watson, Player, Trevino, Seve, & Floyd).
3 putting legends(Arnie, Casper, & Crenshaw).
Miller might be the best iron player ever in his prime.
Irwin the best fairway wood player ever.

Tiger's group combined with Jack's top 10 toughest competitors: Watson, Trevino, Floyd, Irwin, Seve, Casper, Player, Palmer, Phil, and take your pick for #10. It could be Crenshaw or Miller just as easily as anyone of the 9 players left from Tiger's era & that's my point.
[/quote]
Speculating about golfers from different eras is pointless. Your argument has merit, however it can and has been just as easily argued that the reason for these greats from Jacks era was the lack of depth in fields in those days. One thing is certain; golf is now more main stream and lucrative than in Jacks day and would definitely be attracting higher quality athletes who would have played other sports in bygone years. So if it can be agreed that the general level of competition is higher these days, at least from an athletic viewpoint, it is hard to argue that those old golfers like Jack would enjoy the same careers if they came along now. Not to mention the dedication to training, sports science and practice of modern players. Back in the day most of the fields were in the bar partying while Jack was hitting balls and Player was doing sit ups. Now everyone works hard. If Jack came along now he would be facing entire fields who are just as prepared as he would be, and many who are physically superior to him. If Player came along now he wouldnt make the mini tours with his lack of length.
[/quote]

I don't care for Player, but he'd run circles around the likes of Zack Johnson and would still have several majors in today's game. Hale Irwin is a member of the all Big 8 conference 75th anniversary football team. Floyd pitched with The Cubs in spring training and along with Murphy, Nelson, and JC Snead could have played in the majors. Golf will NEVER see the likes of naturally talented athletes and competitors of Jack's era ever again unless you want to play the PING PONG CARD.

[playa]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1383426235' post='8093246']
[quote name='playa' timestamp='1383425495' post='8093212']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1383278410' post='8087048']
Resurrection for Halloween. I was considering the top 10 players from Tiger's era vs the top 10 from Jack's.

Jack's top 10: Watson, Arnie, Player, Trevino, Seve, Casper, Floyd, Miller, Irwin, Crenshaw.

Tiger's top 10: Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Scott, Rory, Furyk, Duval, Sergio, Love, Rose.

A) Tiger's group still has a lot to prove with Rory, Scott, Rose, and Sergio.
B) Jack's group 50 majors vs Tiger's group with 19(1 more than Jack).
C) Tiger's era tougher to win majors with deeper fields vs Jack's era of the toughest competitors.
D) Jack's group had: 5 short game legends(Watson, Player, Trevino, Seve, & Floyd).
3 putting legends(Arnie, Casper, & Crenshaw).
Miller might be the best iron player ever in his prime.
Irwin the best fairway wood player ever.

Tiger's group combined with Jack's top 10 toughest competitors: Watson, Trevino, Floyd, Irwin, Seve, Casper, Player, Palmer, Phil, and take your pick for #10. It could be Crenshaw or Miller just as easily as anyone of the 9 players left from Tiger's era & that's my point.
[/quote]
Speculating about golfers from different eras is pointless. Your argument has merit, however it can and has been just as easily argued that the reason for these greats from Jacks era was the lack of depth in fields in those days. One thing is certain; golf is now more main stream and lucrative than in Jacks day and would definitely be attracting higher quality athletes who would have played other sports in bygone years. So if it can be agreed that the general level of competition is higher these days, at least from an athletic viewpoint, it is hard to argue that those old golfers like Jack would enjoy the same careers if they came along now. Not to mention the dedication to training, sports science and practice of modern players. Back in the day most of the fields were in the bar partying while Jack was hitting balls and Player was doing sit ups. Now everyone works hard. If Jack came along now he would be facing entire fields who are just as prepared as he would be, and many who are physically superior to him. If Player came along now he wouldnt make the mini tours with his lack of length.
[/quote]

I don't care for Player, but he'd run circles around the likes of Zack Johnson and would still have several majors in today's game. Hale Irwin is a member of the all Big 8 conference 75th anniversary football team. Floyd pitched with The Cubs in spring training and along with Murphy, Nelson, and JC Snead could have played in the majors. Golf will NEVER see the likes of naturally talented athletes and competitors of Jack's era ever again unless you want to play the PING PONG CARD.
[/quote]
You response backs my argument. You rattle off a few names of guys who happen to be hof greats. My argument is that athletic guys like them had it all their own way cause golf didnt attract many of them. And in any case now you would get athletes who would have the potential to excel I other sports going for golf. How many SBs would Irwin have started in? As for Player he would have been more like Pavin than Zach. Pavin went okay in the 80s and early 90s before the game changed, but when he was hitting 3 woods into greens that others were hitting 8 irons he was toast.

[turtleback]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1383278410' post='8087048']
Resurrection for Halloween. I was considering the top 10 players from Tiger's era vs the top 10 from Jack's.
[/quote]

Obamacare mandates that health insurance policies cover psychiatric services. You should avail yourself of that, as they can do marvelous things nowadays for people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.