Greatest male player ever

[isaacbm]

[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1386204457' post='8249823']
[quote name='Andr3w' timestamp='1386168599' post='8246907']
Jack has won more majors but if you break down and compare their skillsets then it's tiger by miles.
[/quote]

Driver - Jack by miles
Putter - Even
Long irons/fairway woods - Jack
Short game/irons - Tiger
Trouble shots - Tiger barely

What skill sets are you talking about?
[/quote]

Driver jack by miles
Putter tiger by quite a lot
Long irons fairway woods jack barely
Short game jack wouldn't be top 200 in world at any point in last 25 years
Trouble shots tiger twice as good as next best person in history other then seve who doesn't count because it's impossible to compare him to anyone jack ? Average even by nationwide standards.

[playa]

[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1386246869' post='8251701']
[quote name='tstephen' timestamp='1386204457' post='8249823']
[quote name='Andr3w' timestamp='1386168599' post='8246907']
Jack has won more majors but if you break down and compare their skillsets then it's tiger by miles.
[/quote]

Driver - Jack by miles
Putter - Even
Long irons/fairway woods - Jack
Short game/irons - Tiger
Trouble shots - Tiger barely

What skill sets are you talking about?
[/quote]

Driver jack by miles
Putter tiger by quite a lot
Long irons fairway woods jack barely
Short game jack wouldn't be top 200 in world at any point in last 25 years
Trouble shots tiger twice as good as next best person in history other then seve who doesn't count because it's impossible to compare him to anyone jack ? Average even by nationwide standards.
[/quote]
If you put all tbe greats in a skills challenve Tiger would destroy Jack, absolutely school him. But Tiger is probably all time best only in putting. Driving Greg Norman is the goat Jack or Tiger don't compare. Trouble sbots as you said nobody comes close to Seve. Short game Seve would have both covered, and long irons fws Hogan iis I at the top of the heap all by himself.
But skills sets don't necessarily equate to majors. Tiger and Jack are out in front because of their mental strength and in Tigers case becaus of his near best ever standard in most skills. Apart from driving, tiger would at least be on the podium for every other skill. Tiger is the total package physically and mentally. Thats why he is the goat, and why nobody els is close to him.

[tstephen]

Tiger & Phil(about overall #10) are by far the worst drivers in golf's all-time top 10. Drive for show. The modern show must suck.

Seve is the short game goat. Phil, Tom, Lee, and Tiger 2nd fiddles.

Norman/Trevino/Jack goats of the driver. Jack probably better than Norman!

Nicklaus/Hogan long iron goats.

Tiger & Jack are the mental and physical goats. Seriously? When did Jack ever go mentally numb like Tiger at The Masters on the 15th hole then later self-incriminating himself during the ESPN interview following the round?

Putter goat is where you will get your biggest argument though. I would probably have a historical re-evaluation daily on that one.

Tiger has won 40 of his 79 victories in just 6 different events.
Since his "incident" 75% of his wins were in the same 6 events.
4 of his 6 wins in 2009 where at these same events too.
How exceptional has Tiger been since 2008 US Open?
Even 2 of his 4 wins in 2008 were at HIS 6 events.
So 12 of his last 18 wins have been at 6 events.
But wait...Torrey is one of his courses so 13 of the last 18!

6 events of the 70-80 significant events that the greater number of good players in today's game enter that the Tiger worshippers are always talking about are a mere 7% participation rate in 1 calendar year. Would it not be more significant if Tiger played a few more events(maybe 21)) and had 6 new events each year?

I think Tiger would benefit himself and the game by playing several new different events annually. Snead was like Tiger winning their most multiple times at regular tour events while Jack, Tom, Vardon, Thompson and Hagen had their most single event wins at major championships.

Bottom line is that his chance of catching Jack are very slim unless The USGA moves The US Open to Bay Hill and The PGA gets moved to Firestone permanently. Oops, I probably should not have said anything(rule 18/4).

[CHER2]

Tiger & Phil(about overall #10) are by far the worst drivers in golf's all-time top 10. Drive for show. The modern show must suck.

 

Seve is the short game goat. Phil, Tom, Lee, and Tiger 2nd fiddles.

 

Norman/Trevino/Jack goats of the driver. Jack probably better than Norman!

 

Nicklaus/Hogan long iron goats.

 

Tiger & Jack are the mental and physical goats. Seriously? When did Jack ever go mentally numb like Tiger at The Masters on the 15th hole then later self-incriminating himself during the ESPN interview following the round?

 

Putter goat is where you will get your biggest argument though. I would probably have a historical re-evaluation daily on that one.

 

Tiger has won 40 of his 79 victories in just 6 different events.

Since his "incident" 75% of his wins were in the same 6 events.

4 of his 6 wins in 2009 where at these same events too.

How exceptional has Tiger been since 2008 US Open?

Even 2 of his 4 wins in 2008 were at HIS 6 events.

So 12 of his last 18 wins have been at 6 events.

But wait...Torrey is one of his courses so 13 of the last 18!

 

6 events of the 70-80 significant events that the greater number of good players in today's game enter that the Tiger worshippers are always talking about are a mere 7% participation rate in 1 calendar year. Would it not be more significant if Tiger played a few more events(maybe 21)) and had 6 new events each year?

 

I think Tiger would benefit himself and the game by playing several new different events annually. Snead was like Tiger winning their most multiple times at regular tour events while Jack, Tom, Vardon, Thompson and Hagen had their most single event wins at major championships.

 

Bottom line is that his chance of catching Jack are very slim unless The USGA moves The US Open to Bay Hill and The PGA gets moved to Firestone permanently. Oops, I probably should not have said anything(rule 18/4).

 

I am not sure I agree with this. Tiger may have enjoyed some great success at a few events but I am not sure there is another golfer who had the overall shots in the bag to win on just about any course. You only have to look at the 4 majors really. 3 of them are almost entirely different in terms of how they are played and the type of track they are played on.

 

Masters being the only repeat venue. A bombers course with emphasis on knowledge of the greens. US Open places on emphasis on hitting fairways and challenges almost every club in the bag. British Open is often played on the ground in poor weather conditions...imagination is key. PGA Championships seems like US Open lite to me.

 

When you can win the slam 3 times over it means you can win on any given course at any given time for the most part. Whether one chooses to play familiar events or takes on new venues is more often a matter of convenience than an attempt to rack up victories.

[Hawkeye77]

After 4 years not sure he'll be too worried. ;-)

 

And since nothing new on the Tiger winning majors front since 2013, it's still Jack!

[Ferguson]

Greatest male winner - Jack

 

Greatest male player - S. Snead

 

Greatest male "playah" - Tiger

[CHER2]

After 4 years not sure he'll be too worried. ;-)

 

And since nothing new on the Tiger winning majors front since 2013, it's still Jack!

 

Tiger is going to be 42 in December. In terms of history there are only a relative handful of golfers who win majors past the age of 43. I don't see Jack's record in jeopardy considering the relative health of Tiger's knees and back even with a strong return which is up in the air if not doubtful. I could see a scenario where he could take down the Snead record though.

 

If Tiger wins just 1 more major it would still be a huge story for golf. If he can break the career wins record it would also be a great story for golf and would easily pump some ratings back into the game. Who's not going to be watching the tourneys if he gets to just 1 shy of Snead?

 

My opinion is based solely on ratings for golf and not for a love of the golfer. We haven't seen a sought after career golf record fall since Jack took over Hagen in 1973...44 years ago and Sneads last win was over 50 years ago.

[CHER2]

After 4 years not sure he'll be too worried. ;-)

 

And since nothing new on the Tiger winning majors front since 2013, it's still Jack!

 

Tiger is going to be 42 in December. In terms of history there are only a relative handful of golfers who win majors past the age of 43. I don't see Jack's record in jeopardy considering the relative health of Tiger's knees and back even with a strong return which is up in the air if not doubtful. I could see a scenario where he could take down the Snead record though.

 

If Tiger wins just 1 more major it would still be a huge story for golf. If he can break the career wins record it would also be a great story for golf and would easily pump some ratings back into the game. Who's not going to be watching the tourneys if he gets to just 1 shy of Snead?

 

My opinion is based solely on ratings for golf and not for a love of the golfer. We haven't seen a sought after career golf record fall since Jack took over Hagen in 1973...44 years ago and Sneads last win was over 50 years ago.

 

3 more wins to tie Snead and 4 to overtake I think is something that is doable. 4 more majors to tie Jack and 5 to overtake is extremely hard to fathom. Tiger would have to come back to form he had almost 10 years ago to even smell the major record...and it would have to start happening almost immediately upon his return.

 

If he comes back and stays healthy I would put the career wins record in jeopardy. That is a VERY big IF!!

[Man_O_War]

Nicklaus played above and beyond his peers...Tiger played best golf ever seen on the planet.. the threshold for majors cannot be the only standard... it is one of the standards to beat..I mean you can't accuse Nicklaus for not winning 1 World Championship event but tiger has 18? He was just an incredible master of golf at his prime.. and overall has a superior record to Nicklaus..but the majors...Tiger by a little bit..

[CHER2]

Nicklaus played above and beyond his peers...Tiger played best golf ever seen on the planet.. the threshold for majors cannot be the only standard... it is one of the standards to beat..I mean you can't accuse Nicklaus for not winning 1 World Championship event but tiger has 18? He was just an incredible master of golf at his prime.. and overall has a superior record to Nicklaus..but the majors...Tiger by a little bit..

 

So many ways to compare the greats. By era? By a single decade of brilliance. By wins? By majors? By 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes?

 

IMO strength of era is most important and there are many ways to argue this point. Jack has said himself that his era was not as strong top to bottom but he had some guys at the top who were outstanding. Even Tom Watson was challenging for a major at the age of 60. The bottom line is the GREATS can play in or would adapt to most eras. I don't think they would have won as much in this era...but they would still end up looking like great players.

 

I look at guys like Jack, Tiger and Bobby as peers on the same level. I look at guys like Watson, Arnold, Player, Mickelson, Els, Trevino, Snead, Nelson, Hagen, Hogan, Ballesteros, Faldo, Sarazen etc as guys on a similar level. If Els goes back in time...he dominates the early years of golf. If Snead comes forward in time he sees similar results to Mickelson. That's my opinion.

[rangersgoalie]

Jack greatest record

 

Tiger greatest player

 

 

comparing generations makes me throw up in my mouth a bit :taunt:

[CHER2]

Jack greatest record

 

Tiger greatest player

 

 

comparing generations makes me throw up in my mouth a bit :taunt:

 

Well then you're going to hate this...lol!

 

It's hard to compare PLAYERS in eras but it's not as hard to compare eras.

 

Pre 1900's almost a regional contest similar to high school competitions today. 8 players 16 payers all from a certain region which was restrained to whether or not you could get on a train and play. Old Tom Morris was no more of a hero or great golfer than I am. I could have easily won the first 4 British Opens just as any good golfer today could.

 

Post 1800's to say 1930's. A game that was still only for elites and played still mostly by regional players. One or two players crossed the pond but the talent pools were split by the Atlantic. A talent pool that did not include much of the rest of the world because of travel issues. A week long boat ride is not something most golfers wanted to do.

 

1930's to 1960's. Still not much overseas travel. But it started to become popular. It was expensive and the talent pools between Europe and America were still in large part divided. You did not play against all the best in the world...only a few. Imagine trying to travel from Australia or South Africa at this time.

 

Today you have to play against EVERY one of the world's best players because it's so easy to travel.There are 10 times more golfer now than in Jack's age 50 million to 5 million. Golf has reached the far corners of the Earth meaning each pro golfer has to face the best in the ENTIRE world. Travel is as easy as booking a flight vs a long arduous journey overseas.

[rangersgoalie]

CHER2

 

Basically I agree.

 

Athletes in every sport have grown. Bigger, stronger, faster. And in every major sport, there are more athletes, more access to solid coaching (of course, more access to bad coaching as well!), and an ever growing learning curve athletes develop through.

 

I completely agree that golf history is full of not only "regional" limitations, but also socio-economic. It's a romantic notion about the caddy yard development (I caddied as a kid as well!(, but the fact remains, that for many generations, the "haves" had more access to competitive golf.

 

As we witness the current generation

1) the understanding of the optimum ball flight has radically changed, even in the past decade. Gone are the days of the low launching, high spinning, rising draw that looked so cool when I was a kid, replaced by what still feels and looks like a moon ball to me. Of course the equipment is making this more possible, but R&D pushed the designs in this new direction as engineers learned and players accepted more

 

2) trackman, boditrak, and video allow great research, great coaching, and a way to better learn how to take advantage of perfectly fit equipment

 

3) training has evolved. Heck players made fun of Gary Player for his working out, now there is enormous knowledge and expertise to develop speed/balance, stability

 

4) the species evolves

 

Saying that, guys like Snead and Nicklaus, given the resources today would still be phenomenal, the biggest difference being there is far more depth to face, not the 5-10 guys Nicklaus said he had to beat. That depth, and the confluence of athleticism/equipment/training simply creates a filed with more players who can run full speed when it is going well. In a sport like golf, great hands and brains, would still be able to play IMO, just not as dominant.

[CHER2]

CHER2

 

Basically I agree.

 

Athletes in every sport have grown. Bigger, stronger, faster. And in every major sport, there are more athletes, more access to solid coaching (of course, more access to bad coaching as well!), and an ever growing learning curve athletes develop through.

 

I completely agree that golf history is full of not only "regional" limitations, but also socio-economic. It's a romantic notion about the caddy yard development (I caddied as a kid as well!(, but the fact remains, that for many generations, the "haves" had more access to competitive golf.

 

As we witness the current generation

1) the understanding of the optimum ball flight has radically changed, even in the past decade. Gone are the days of the low launching, high spinning, rising draw that looked so cool when I was a kid, replaced by what still feels and looks like a moon ball to me. Of course the equipment is making this more possible, but R&D pushed the designs in this new direction as engineers learned and players accepted more

 

2) trackman, boditrak, and video allow great research, great coaching, and a way to better learn how to take advantage of perfectly fit equipment

 

3) training has evolved. Heck players made fun of Gary Player for his working out, now there is enormous knowledge and expertise to develop speed/balance, stability

 

4) the species evolves

 

Saying that, guys like Snead and Nicklaus, given the resources today would still be phenomenal, the biggest difference being there is far more depth to face, not the 5-10 guys Nicklaus said he had to beat. That depth, and the confluence of athleticism/equipment/training simply creates a filed with more players who can run full speed when it is going well. In a sport like golf, great hands and brains, would still be able to play IMO, just not as dominant.

 

I think you raise a great point with coaching and technology. I mean if some of these older players had access to today's technology and coaching maybe Jack or Ben could have done even better than they did. I think the greatest players would rise to the top in any generation but maybe not as many would. Some would thrive and some would fade IMO. If I had to guess Jack would thrive and so would Bobby but maybe not Nelson or Sarazen is all I am saying.

 

Imagine all of those guys playing today against the best in the world as opposed to the best in the region. Phil has to play against guys from Argentina, South Africa, Australia, India, etc. There was a time when it was only Europe and America..and even further back only Europe OR America.

[Hit em good]

New

Jack

Tiger

Watson

Trevino

 

 

Old

Sneed

Hogan

Nelson

Palmer

Player

Jones

[starsail85]

JN only had a stroke average of below 70 4 times in his career

 

Can we please stop going on about the guy being something he wasn't . Great player obviously, great brain and course management , solid driver but nothing close to the hyperbole on here , great long iron player but not a sniff on woods , ok short iron player bang average wedges poor bunker good putter . Hogan was a miles better player than JN

 

 

If you want to know who played the best golf , how about look at who played the best golf

[Hit em good]

JN only had a stroke average of below 70 4 times in his career

 

Can we please stop going on about the guy being something he wasn't . Great player obviously, great brain and course management , solid driver but nothing close to the hyperbole on here , great long iron player but not a sniff on woods , ok short iron player bang average wedges poor bunker good putter . Hogan was a miles better player than JN

 

 

If you want to know who played the best golf , how about look at who played the best golf

 

Trolling

[widow-maker]

I think that there is obviously a greater depth of field now than there was 40 years ago. But, we're only 5 years removed from the Tiger Woods era where he dominated supposed greater depths of field. Just because there are more good players today doesn't mean that we won't see another dominant player take over the game. We could have another Tiger or Jack, somebody who wins double digit majors. The trick is that you have to combine tremendous talent with a mind that's unusually strong. You've got uber talented players out there today like DJ and Rory, but do they have the strength of mind to handle winning majors repeatedly. Every major that Jack or Tiger showed up at in their heyday they were the prohibitive favorites. That's a lot to handle, but they not only handled it, they thrived under pressure in that environment. Spieth looks like he's got the mind for it and he's really close to having the talent, even if he isn't the longest guy out there.

[lowheel]

JN only had a stroke average of below 70 4 times in his career

 

Can we please stop going on about the guy being something he wasn't . Great player obviously, great brain and course management , solid driver but nothing close to the hyperbole on here , great long iron player but not a sniff on woods , ok short iron player bang average wedges poor bunker good putter . Hogan was a miles better player than JN

 

 

If you want to know who played the best golf , how about look at who played the best golf

 

Wow, there goes your credibility...thanks for the laughs

[Roadking2003]

.I mean you can't accuse Nicklaus for not winning 1 World Championship event but tiger has 18?

 

The WGC events started in 1999..... long after Jack finished playing.

[Shilgy]

.I mean you can't accuse Nicklaus for not winning 1 World Championship event but tiger has 18?

 

The WGC events started in 1999..... long after Jack finished playing.

Pretty much what he was saying I think. I read it as "you can't give any crap to Jack about not winning any wgc events" because they didn't yet exist of course. So we don't know what Jack would have done but Tiger's record in them is nothing short of phenomenal.

[lowheel]

.I mean you can't accuse Nicklaus for not winning 1 World Championship event but tiger has 18?

 

The WGC events started in 1999..... long after Jack finished playing.

Pretty much what he was saying I think. I read it as "you can't give any crap to Jack about not winning any wgc events" because they didn't yet exist of course. So we don't know what Jack would have done but Tiger's record in them is nothing short of phenomenal.

 

We do know how he would do.Its a reduced field event i would venture to say he wins at least 10 over his career easily.and yes Tigers record in those are impressive but its also the perfect storm. Generational player in a smaller field his win % is almost 3 times his career average. There is the horses for courses argument with basically him winning half of these at firestone but again Jack or Tiger in their prime in a reduced field I never take the field with those 2 playing. thats just me though

[Shilgy]

.I mean you can't accuse Nicklaus for not winning 1 World Championship event but tiger has 18?

 

The WGC events started in 1999..... long after Jack finished playing.

Pretty much what he was saying I think. I read it as "you can't give any crap to Jack about not winning any wgc events" because they didn't yet exist of course. So we don't know what Jack would have done but Tiger's record in them is nothing short of phenomenal.

 

We do know how he would do.Its a reduced field event i would venture to say he wins at least 10 over his career easily.and yes Tigers record in those are impressive but its also the perfect storm. Generational player in a smaller field his win % is almost 3 times his career average. There is the horses for courses argument with basically him winning half of these at firestone but again Jack or Tiger in their prime in a reduced field I never take the field with those 2 playing. thats just me though

No no no. I understand exactly what your saying. Sounds like you're saying a smaller but high quality field is easier to win than a larger but not as good a field depth event. Hmm, where have we heard that argument before? :)

[Darth Putter]

I'm not reading 81 pages.

 

The answer is obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

Telly Savalas.

[lowheel]

.I mean you can't accuse Nicklaus for not winning 1 World Championship event but tiger has 18?

 

The WGC events started in 1999..... long after Jack finished playing.

Pretty much what he was saying I think. I read it as "you can't give any crap to Jack about not winning any wgc events" because they didn't yet exist of course. So we don't know what Jack would have done but Tiger's record in them is nothing short of phenomenal.

 

We do know how he would do.Its a reduced field event i would venture to say he wins at least 10 over his career easily.and yes Tigers record in those are impressive but its also the perfect storm. Generational player in a smaller field his win % is almost 3 times his career average. There is the horses for courses argument with basically him winning half of these at firestone but again Jack or Tiger in their prime in a reduced field I never take the field with those 2 playing. thats just me though

No no no. I understand exactly what your saying. Sounds like you're saying a smaller but high quality field is easier to win than a larger but not as good a field depth event. Hmm, where have we heard that argument before? :)

 

Well all joking aside for elite generational players yes it is easier. less players to beat regardless of their "ranking". thats why his win% is that high in those.

[Shilgy]

 

Well all joking aside for elite generational players yes it is easier. less players to beat regardless of their "ranking". thats why his win% is that high in those.

And all joking aside that is why many say that effectively the fields of 50 years ago and older were effectively small fields.

[starsail85]

JN only had a stroke average of below 70 4 times in his career

 

Can we please stop going on about the guy being something he wasn't . Great player obviously, great brain and course management , solid driver but nothing close to the hyperbole on here , great long iron player but not a sniff on woods , ok short iron player bang average wedges poor bunker good putter . Hogan was a miles better player than JN

 

 

If you want to know who played the best golf , how about look at who played the best golf

 

Wow, there goes your credibility...thanks for the laughs

 

The guy never won the Vardon trophy , JN was the best of his era when the going got tough , but many players in history have been better golfers than him

[Hankshank]

Justin Thomas is not exactly the player I root for, but he seems like the young gun now that could step into this category. He's got the mind and the swing.

 

Historically, I wonder if anyone has been better during a 10-year period than Tiger 1999-2009. But then things started to go wrong, so JN is obviously the winner career-wise. Has anyone made golf boring before Tiger?

[Dave230]

Jack greatest record

 

Tiger greatest player

 

 

comparing generations makes me throw up in my mouth a bit :taunt:

 

Well then you're going to hate this...lol!

 

It's hard to compare PLAYERS in eras but it's not as hard to compare eras.

 

Pre 1900's almost a regional contest similar to high school competitions today. 8 players 16 payers all from a certain region which was restrained to whether or not you could get on a train and play. Old Tom Morris was no more of a hero or great golfer than I am. I could have easily won the first 4 British Opens just as any good golfer today could.

 

Post 1800's to say 1930's. A game that was still only for elites and played still mostly by regional players. One or two players crossed the pond but the talent pools were split by the Atlantic. A talent pool that did not include much of the rest of the world because of travel issues. A week long boat ride is not something most golfers wanted to do.

 

1930's to 1960's. Still not much overseas travel. But it started to become popular. It was expensive and the talent pools between Europe and America were still in large part divided. You did not play against all the best in the world...only a few. Imagine trying to travel from Australia or South Africa at this time.

 

Today you have to play against EVERY one of the world's best players because it's so easy to travel.There are 10 times more golfer now than in Jack's age 50 million to 5 million. Golf has reached the far corners of the Earth meaning each pro golfer has to face the best in the ENTIRE world. Travel is as easy as booking a flight vs a long arduous journey overseas.

 

With the 1950s players and older their end totals often end up fair comparisons to how good they were relative to today's players.

 

Phil Mickelson has tougher opposition than Ben Hogan for example when he tees up in a major. But he's played in every major since the 1994 Masters, apart from two. That's 115 major attempts. He's had 24 attempts at winning the Open Championship. Ben Hogan got 1 attempt. Could you imagine how many he might have won if he had even 10 attempts?

 

Bobby Jones took part in 4 Open Championships and won 3 of them. Could you imagine if he played in 10 of them? He won 7 modern majors by 28 but only had 2 to play in his peak years. He only played in 15 majors in his peak years. Spieth has played in 20 majors at 24.

 

So what you gained in weaker fields many years ago, you lost in less opportunities to display your talent.

[MoneyPlayer33]

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

 

Thank god some1 finally gets it . Jack has more majors thats it . Tiger has more wins snd the fields are so much stronger. When jack played mayb 25 guys could win the golf tournament now every guy teeing it up on thursday has. A chance