Greatest male player ever

[llewol007]

I believe the greatest male golfers are Nicklaus and Woods

[deadsolid...shank]

 

Thats the thing with the pro tiger side always what ifs and qualifiers. What did you see when tiger was healthy in his 30s that led you to believe his win % would not drop? and his majors would not drop? His last major the 2008 US open required a careers worth of 40+ foot putts and good breaks. i knew he was on borrowed time after that and YE Yang took him down the following year, it really scarred him.Immediately tried to change his swing.Hes never contended since. Jack dominated over 20 years and tiger for about 10.Injuries or not one did it and the other didnt. You dont get credit for stuff you didnt do. over time we realize ones peak was unsustainable and ones was longer and validated over twice as long. Also as per your scoring average being better for Tiger, I have news for you matt kuchar has had 3 season with better scoring than Jack.make your case how Kuch is better. Spieth has several seasons better than Jacks. See how this goes? the pristine putting surfaces the players have today versus the conditions of 40 years ago are laughably comparable. 3 footers were adventures in the 60s-70s. Dave Pelz has followed this since then and will tell you the make % were lower.Not because the players were worse putters but because they had to have a pop or hit in their strokes because the ball wouldnt hold the line or even get there from 20 feet. no bouncing balls into concrete fairways from 280 out on par 5s.

Since Tiger last major at the same point in jacks career:

 

Tiger 0 majors 14 wins

Jack 8 majors 33 wins

 

Lets not mention his performance in the majors. he literally had several taken away from him by HOFers with generational performances during that span.

 

Now Tell me about how dominant tiger was on his peers when he hasnt done anything of significance in 10 years? this never happened in jacks careers. Id be with you if he maintained at least that pace its painfully obvious he didnt sniff that. having 2 or 3 peek years with 8 wins doesnt make up for dominating over 2 decades. your last sentence is actually pure opinion because weve seen the second act of his career now and we know this to be untrue

Nice to see you join the dark side low! Now you're the one coming up with justification. You have hung your hat on the majors being the be all end all. Period. Now you're doing exactly what you accuse Tiger fans of doing.

C'mon man, stick to your guns. You have one real bullet and that is 18>14. Anything else favors Tiger. Total wins, strength of era, total domination of peers, best and most scoring records.

Months ago myself and others said Jack can be goat but Tiger played the best. Has nothing to do with a short period of dominance if in that span you win more than anyone ever.

 

"Strength of era" and "total domination of peers" are just as subjective (and thus opinion) as anything Lowheel said. As in every one of these threads, one side (Tiger's) says deeper fields. Jack's side says less overall quality, but more top tier guys. I happen to believe that part. The list of guys who went toe to toe with Jack is far superior to those in contention down the stretch with Tiger. But that's subjective and opinion on my part too.

 

Really comes down to how one defines GOAT. Overall career or briefer, peak period.

[lowheel]

OK, I'll shake it up..................Hogan..............cause, you know, Jack watched Hogan

and Hogan didn't watch Jack.

 

Actually Hogan watched Jack from close up at the 1960 U.S. Open for 36 holes and said he played "with a kid who should have won this Open by ten shots!"

 

They typically played a practice round at the Masters together.

 

Just throwing the quotes around! ;-)

 

LOL, I was just repeating.............well, you know...

 

I think Drew Taylor's post above pretty well sums up my opinion as well....or like this

 

Jack is the greatest golfer of all time

Tiger is the most dominant golfer of all time.

 

For 10 years Sandy Koufax may have been the most dominant pitcher of all time

but he wasn't the greatest pitcher of all time. But for those10 years; wins, losses

strikeouts and ERA; no hitters and a perfect game........crazy good. Willie Stargell

said "trying to hit Sandy was like trying to drink coffee with a fork"....since we're

throwing quotes around, lol.

 

Koufax was great 5 maybe 6 years tops. Where did 10 come from?

[lowheel]

OK, I'll shake it up..................Hogan..............cause, you know, Jack watched Hogan

and Hogan didn't watch Jack.

 

Actually Hogan watched Jack from close up at the 1960 U.S. Open for 36 holes and said he played "with a kid who should have won this Open by ten shots!"

 

They typically played a practice round at the Masters together.

 

Just throwing the quotes around! ;-)

 

LOL, I was just repeating.............well, you know...

 

I think Drew Taylor's post above pretty well sums up my opinion as well....or like this

 

Jack is the greatest golfer of all time

Tiger is the most dominant golfer of all time.

 

For 10 years Sandy Koufax may have been the most dominant pitcher of all time

but he wasn't the greatest pitcher of all time. But for those10 years; wins, losses

strikeouts and ERA; no hitters and a perfect game........crazy good. Willie Stargell

said "trying to hit Sandy was like trying to drink coffee with a fork"....since we're

throwing quotes around, lol.

 

Like the Sandy Koufax analogy!

Except Koufax didn't win more games than anyone.

 

Neither did Tiger... ;)

[Bomber_11]

TW Fans will always say TW regardless of how you wanna argue it.

 

Same goes for Nicklaus fans.

 

I think a lot of it may be generational. At 27, my generation never saw Jack play. We did however see Tiger absolutely crush fields and change the sport of Golf.

 

If Tiger had Jack's health and longevity, who's to say what kind of record books would be rewritten. We'll never get to know that.

 

It's Tiger vs. Jack, MJ vs. Kobe, Joe Montana vs. Tom Brady, etc. - everyone has their opinion of which is the "GOAT" and typically there's no changing that view.

 

That being said - I'm going TW, Kobe, and TB12 :)

[lowheel]

Thats the thing with the pro tiger side always what ifs and qualifiers. What did you see when tiger was healthy in his 30s that led you to believe his win % would not drop? and his majors would not drop? His last major the 2008 US open required a careers worth of 40+ foot putts and good breaks. i knew he was on borrowed time after that and YE Yang took him down the following year, it really scarred him.Immediately tried to change his swing.Hes never contended since. Jack dominated over 20 years and tiger for about 10.Injuries or not one did it and the other didnt. You dont get credit for stuff you didnt do. over time we realize ones peak was unsustainable and ones was longer and validated over twice as long. Also as per your scoring average being better for Tiger, I have news for you matt kuchar has had 3 season with better scoring than Jack.make your case how Kuch is better. Spieth has several seasons better than Jacks. See how this goes? the pristine putting surfaces the players have today versus the conditions of 40 years ago are laughably comparable. 3 footers were adventures in the 60s-70s. Dave Pelz has followed this since then and will tell you the make % were lower.Not because the players were worse putters but because they had to have a pop or hit in their strokes because the ball wouldnt hold the line or even get there from 20 feet. no bouncing balls into concrete fairways from 280 out on par 5s.

Since Tiger last major at the same point in jacks career:

 

Tiger 0 majors 14 wins

Jack 8 majors 33 wins

 

Lets not mention his performance in the majors. he literally had several taken away from him by HOFers with generational performances during that span.

 

Now Tell me about how dominant tiger was on his peers when he hasnt done anything of significance in 10 years? this never happened in jacks careers. Id be with you if he maintained at least that pace its painfully obvious he didnt sniff that. having 2 or 3 peek years with 8 wins doesnt make up for dominating over 2 decades. your last sentence is actually pure opinion because weve seen the second act of his career now and we know this to be untrue

Nice to see you join the dark side low! Now you're the one coming up with justification. You have hung your hat on the majors being the be all end all. Period. Now you're doing exactly what you accuse Tiger fans of doing.

C'mon man, stick to your guns. You have one real bullet and that is 18>14. Anything else favors Tiger. Total wins, strength of era, total domination of peers, best and most scoring records.

Months ago myself and others said Jack can be goat but Tiger played the best. Has nothing to do with a short period of dominance if in that span you win more than anyone ever.

 

Ah Shil, still grasping at straws i see. All i have is 18-14 you say? Youre better than this.Im doing no such thing. jack has not only major wins over tiger but major performance over him.You know this and still deny this. Keep banging the drum of his era being better & "tougher" even though you know its BS. other than Ye Yang who stole a major off tiger? exactly. As for you last sentence its utter nonsense and easily disprovable with a stroke of key. 1999-2000 were his peak and now turn out to be abberations and he won no more than 5 times over the next 5 years.Jack did this several times so i dont see what you mean. We've seen these #s before, heck spieth just did it thomas almost did it, DJ did it. He amassed alot of wins in that period of time and then hit a wall. Jack never did. he actually got better as proven by his major results in his 30s. When the competition was at its highest so was Jacks. When more players joined the world golf scene that grew up watching Jack he got better, think about that for a second. he didnt fade, he got better. Tiger did not unfortunately, hence the separation between the 2 but hey keep banging that "era" drum, gotta keep up that narrative.

Heres a scary stat for you he won 3 majors in the 80s. only Seve and Tom Watson won more 4 and 5 respectfully and jack was in his 40s. He had the 82 open stolen from him by an all time 71s &72nd hole performance by Watson, the previous spring watson held off jack & miller again at the 81 masters by holing 2 clutch putts in the last 3 holes and lets not forget the 83 Pga where he dropped a 66 on sunday to scare Sutton and lose by 1. Its mind boggling how we come back to this and you cant even concede tiger doesnt match up where it matters most major performance. oh well different strokes and what not. you know i respect you on here but i really believe your fandom clouds your judgement

[Hankshank]

TW Fans will always say TW regardless of how you wanna argue it.

 

Same goes for Nicklaus fans.

 

I think a lot of it may be generational. At 27, my generation never saw Jack play. We did however see Tiger absolutely crush fields and change the sport of Golf.

 

 

 

There is much in this. Just hearing about a player is not the same as actually seeing them. All the times Tiger just shut the door on his competitors, he was just brutal. His dominance has not since been copied. No one has since been the rooster for more than like 3 months in a row.

 

About Jack, I did start playing 1981 and there was nearly no TV coverage of golf in Scandinavia those days. But I guess there are some of you good folks here who started playing earlier and could follow jack on TV, maybe from week to week. Maybe even IRL? Did you ever find him as dominant as Tiger was? Can you explain the greatness of Nicklaus as you saw it?

 

One thing more here - All the TV coverage, even from the 60's is probably still available. It would be a great thing if you made summaries from each season available, lets say on youtube, or somewhere where you could look for a small fee.

( and thinking beyond that - I actually save the good tournaments I tape on my TiVO box for later showing. And i do look! Great tournaments, like when Spieth kicked the azz of Reed at Valspar, I have seen that maybe 6 times. And even further - There is so much that could be done with the recordings from the finished tournaments. It's of course most exciting to see the last holes Live, to feel the tension. But there could be so much more done. Some time they make compilations like "all the shots MR X did in the last 9 holes or so", really, really nice to see! A suggestion - give the recordings to happy youtube amateurs and let them fiddle around with it)

[Hawkeye77]

TW Fans will always say TW regardless of how you wanna argue it.

 

Same goes for Nicklaus fans.

 

I think a lot of it may be generational. At 27, my generation never saw Jack play. We did however see Tiger absolutely crush fields and change the sport of Golf.

 

If Tiger had Jack's health and longevity, who's to say what kind of record books would be rewritten. We'll never get to know that.

 

It's Tiger vs. Jack, MJ vs. Kobe, Joe Montana vs. Tom Brady, etc. - everyone has their opinion of which is the "GOAT" and typically there's no changing that view.

 

That being said - I'm going TW, Kobe, and TB12 :)

 

 

Not true. Tiger wins 4 more majors and I'll have to think hard about it.

[Conrad1953]

OK, I'll shake it up..................Hogan..............cause, you know, Jack watched Hogan

and Hogan didn't watch Jack.

 

Actually Hogan watched Jack from close up at the 1960 U.S. Open for 36 holes and said he played "with a kid who should have won this Open by ten shots!"

 

They typically played a practice round at the Masters together.

 

Just throwing the quotes around! ;-)

 

LOL, I was just repeating.............well, you know...

 

I think Drew Taylor's post above pretty well sums up my opinion as well....or like this

 

Jack is the greatest golfer of all time

Tiger is the most dominant golfer of all time.

 

For 10 years Sandy Koufax may have been the most dominant pitcher of all time

but he wasn't the greatest pitcher of all time. But for those10 years; wins, losses

strikeouts and ERA; no hitters and a perfect game........crazy good. Willie Stargell

said "trying to hit Sandy was like trying to drink coffee with a fork"....since we're

throwing quotes around, lol.

 

Koufax was great 5 maybe 6 years tops. Where did 10 come from?

 

Sorry, It takes 10 years to qualify for the Baseball HOF. I got that number stuck in

my head. You're right, it was the last 5 years of his career that he dominated because

he figured out how to hit the strike zone......but for those 5 years..............and I

think he was just 32 when he retired to save the use of his arm.....for normal things..

.......like eating and drinking.

 

I'm a little biased since I got to see him pitch when I was a kid and grew up to be

a diehard Dodger fan......until the O'Malleys sold.

[Hawkeye77]

ala Koufax, Gale Sayers is always in my mind as one of the 5 greatest running backs of all time - lots of ways to look at it.

 

 

Jack!

[Paul065]

To me, you have to have seen the entirety (Or pretty close) of somebody's career in person to give a rounded view.

 

I get asked on nights out after a few beers 'Best Man United 11 of all time". Then get asked "No George Best, no Duncan Edwards?" Well no I never saw them play live. Everything from me is pretty much 1990 onwards (I was 8 in that year)

 

NBA, starting 5, Kidd, MJ, LeBron, Duncan, Hakeem. Second 5 Steph Curry, Kobe, Durant, Garnett, Shaq. I can't pick Magic, Bird, Wilt, Kareem, Oscar Robertson because I saw little if none of their career.

 

Only started watching NFL 2003, so for me the QB discussion is Brady, Peyton, Rogers. Favre could have an argument but only saw one good season with GB and the honeymoon with the Vikings.

 

Tennis, I have heated arguments with two of my best friends on a regular basis about Nadal or Federer (I'm Nadal if you care) Sampras gets the odd mention, Aggasi maybe. Stefi Graf would destroy Serena imo. But again, can't comment on Laver or Borg or McEnroe. Never saw them.

 

For somebody my age (34), nobody is going to get close to Tiger probably in my lifetime. The top 5 are Tiger (By a country mile), Phil, Els, Vijay and Duval. Only saw Faldo in 96 so 1 of the 6 doesn't cut it. Only saw Seve when he was spraying it all over the place at Oak Hill in '95 or burying images of his swing in the desert with Mack O'Grady.

 

Butch Harmon, when asked on Sky (Probably twice a year), says the same every time "Jack is the greatest champion, but Tiger is the best player I have ever seen" And he has seen them all with the exception of Bobby Jones.

[CHER2]

If you want to take a look at quality of field from 1860 until today you would have to start with the British Open. The first 27 Opens were won by Scotts. Not hard to figure out why. That is basically where the game was being played and not many other countries were in on it. It was a regional event and perhaps not all that popular at the time. Old Tom Morris had it pretty damn easy.

 

From 1890 to 1922 a few other countries got involved but it was still mainly a UK game. Other than a 1 timer winner from France, Scottland, Jersey, England won the rest. Scotland won 11 of them. Just from an influx of talent from other areas Scotland's win % went from 100% to about 33%.

 

Then the USA got involved in 1922 with Hagen winning. They (USA) won 10 of the next 12 events. Since that time in 1922 Scottland has won 2 times. Lawrie and Lyle. If you want to understand what including the rest of the world in golf events means to the quality of field just ask Scotland. They went from 100% in the first 27 years, to 33% in the next 30 or so, to about 2 % in the last 95 years.

 

The first 16 US Opens went to guys from Scotland, England, and Jersey. 100% of the wins up to 1910. From that point on USA has won almost 80% of them and 1 period of time where they won 35 straight. The USA has won almost 75% of all majors from 1922. Lately the USA win % is probably closer to 50% because of an influx in talent from the rest of the world. I think we are now at that point where ALMOST total world golf saturation is here...but it's only going to get harder as other less developed countries produce more golfers. Old Tom would not stand a chance and I am not sure a guy like Hagen would either.

 

I just looked. Since the year Tiger won his last major the years following have produced about 40% major winners from the US. That is down from the 80% numbers in previous eras. ON THE SURFACE it would seem it's almost twice has hard to win a major now than in Jack's day.

 

 

So you think there is a correlation between US winners and difficulty to win? That's a stretch.

 

Just for the record, here are the percent US wins. Personally, I don't think there is any relationship at between US wins and difficulty.

 

1960s; 78%

1970s; 85%

1980s; 73%

1990s; 58%

2000s; 63%

2010s; 47%

 

So, using your logic it's much harder to win a major in the 2010 decade than in the 2000 decade. I'm not buying your theory.

 

Well sort of yes. If the US Open was made up of 100% American golfers...it would always be won by Americans. So it would logically follow that the more you infuse the best players from the rest of the world it's going to be more difficult for an American to take home the trophy. I think air travel has been pretty easy now for a long time (and the income in the game can support it) but the infusion of international players had a steady increase from when Jack and Gary started doing it and probably right through the 70's and 80's more internationals were taking a field spot from a lesser qualified American. I think the 2000's and 2010's probably had a very similar amount of internationals in the events but I'm pretty sure the 60's through the 80's had quite a bit less as you go back in time.

 

This is just the US Open. Obviously when other countries got involved in the British Open the Scots found that it was much harder to have someone from their country take home the Claret Jug. They took home the first 27 titles because that's who mainly made up the field but they have only won 2 of the last 95 years or so. That is because the field got exponentially stronger from adding more and more internationals.

[Shilgy]

For those that say there is no proof of era. Let's drop the GOAT talk for a moment and compare eras. Of the Top 37 all time winners on the PGA tour 19 were born in the first 22 years. Thats from 1890 Willie McFarlane to the 1912 group of Hogan-Nelson-Snead. 19 of 37 in 22 years! 11 of the top 37 were born from 1913-1947. Longer span and fewer winners. Would anyone disagree that Jacks' era was tougher than the previous? From 1948 on-so most of them are well finished with their career as they are 50-70 with the additions no less of Woods Mickelson and Els there are just 7.

So in conclusion the guys over a century ago were the greatest of all time because they won more? If you say "no of course not" then the argument of Jacks' era having the greatest champions is also out the window because they had less depth-meaning more individual wins as well.

 

Does anyone think that Cy Young is the greatest pitcher in history? Every single era has built on the previous to get better. Let's ignore the bigger stronger debate and just go with better. In MLB pitchers and hitters use Trackman and other devices to tune their pitching and hitting to the max. And you don't believe that gives them as edge on Ruth Gehrig and Feller?

 

Why is it not possible for tour players to improve?

 

I am with Butch- "Jack is the greatest champion, but Tiger is the best player I have ever seen"

[CHER2]

If you want to take a look at quality of field from 1860 until today you would have to start with the British Open. The first 27 Opens were won by Scotts. Not hard to figure out why. That is basically where the game was being played and not many other countries were in on it. It was a regional event and perhaps not all that popular at the time. Old Tom Morris had it pretty damn easy.

 

From 1890 to 1922 a few other countries got involved but it was still mainly a UK game. Other than a 1 timer winner from France, Scottland, Jersey, England won the rest. Scotland won 11 of them. Just from an influx of talent from other areas Scotland's win % went from 100% to about 33%.

 

Then the USA got involved in 1922 with Hagen winning. They (USA) won 10 of the next 12 events. Since that time in 1922 Scottland has won 2 times. Lawrie and Lyle. If you want to understand what including the rest of the world in golf events means to the quality of field just ask Scotland. They went from 100% in the first 27 years, to 33% in the next 30 or so, to about 2 % in the last 95 years.

 

The first 16 US Opens went to guys from Scotland, England, and Jersey. 100% of the wins up to 1910. From that point on USA has won almost 80% of them and 1 period of time where they won 35 straight. The USA has won almost 75% of all majors from 1922. Lately the USA win % is probably closer to 50% because of an influx in talent from the rest of the world. I think we are now at that point where ALMOST total world golf saturation is here...but it's only going to get harder as other less developed countries produce more golfers. Old Tom would not stand a chance and I am not sure a guy like Hagen would either.

 

I just looked. Since the year Tiger won his last major the years following have produced about 40% major winners from the US. That is down from the 80% numbers in previous eras. ON THE SURFACE it would seem it's almost twice has hard to win a major now than in Jack's day.

 

 

So you think there is a correlation between US winners and difficulty to win? That's a stretch.

 

Just for the record, here are the percent US wins. Personally, I don't think there is any relationship at between US wins and difficulty.

 

1960s; 78%

1970s; 85%

1980s; 73%

1990s; 58%

2000s; 63%

2010s; 47%

 

So, using your logic it's much harder to win a major in the 2010 decade than in the 2000 decade. I'm not buying your theory.

 

Without going back to look at every Us Open field from each decade I would guess it went SOMETHING like this as a % of internationals in the field. Again, this is just a wild guess right now.

 

60's maybe 10-15%

70's maybe 20-25%

80's maybe 30-35%

90's maybe 40-45%

2000's and beyond maybe it's close to 50% now.

[cdnglf]

If you want to take a look at quality of field from 1860 until today you would have to start with the British Open. The first 27 Opens were won by Scotts. Not hard to figure out why. That is basically where the game was being played and not many other countries were in on it. It was a regional event and perhaps not all that popular at the time. Old Tom Morris had it pretty damn easy.

 

From 1890 to 1922 a few other countries got involved but it was still mainly a UK game. Other than a 1 timer winner from France, Scottland, Jersey, England won the rest. Scotland won 11 of them. Just from an influx of talent from other areas Scotland's win % went from 100% to about 33%.

 

Then the USA got involved in 1922 with Hagen winning. They (USA) won 10 of the next 12 events. Since that time in 1922 Scottland has won 2 times. Lawrie and Lyle. If you want to understand what including the rest of the world in golf events means to the quality of field just ask Scotland. They went from 100% in the first 27 years, to 33% in the next 30 or so, to about 2 % in the last 95 years.

 

The first 16 US Opens went to guys from Scotland, England, and Jersey. 100% of the wins up to 1910. From that point on USA has won almost 80% of them and 1 period of time where they won 35 straight. The USA has won almost 75% of all majors from 1922. Lately the USA win % is probably closer to 50% because of an influx in talent from the rest of the world. I think we are now at that point where ALMOST total world golf saturation is here...but it's only going to get harder as other less developed countries produce more golfers. Old Tom would not stand a chance and I am not sure a guy like Hagen would either.

 

I just looked. Since the year Tiger won his last major the years following have produced about 40% major winners from the US. That is down from the 80% numbers in previous eras. ON THE SURFACE it would seem it's almost twice has hard to win a major now than in Jack's day.

 

 

So you think there is a correlation between US winners and difficulty to win? That's a stretch.

 

Just for the record, here are the percent US wins. Personally, I don't think there is any relationship at between US wins and difficulty.

 

1960s; 78%

1970s; 85%

1980s; 73%

1990s; 58%

2000s; 63%

2010s; 47%

 

So, using your logic it's much harder to win a major in the 2010 decade than in the 2000 decade. I'm not buying your theory.

 

Well sort of yes. If the US Open was made up of 100% American golfers...it would always be won by Americans. So it would logically follow that the more you infuse the best players from the rest of the world it's going to be more difficult for an American to take home the trophy. I think air travel has been pretty easy now for a long time (and the income in the game can support it) but the infusion of international players had a steady increase from when Jack and Gary started doing it and probably right through the 70's and 80's more internationals were taking a field spot from a lesser qualified American. I think the 2000's and 2010's probably had a very similar amount of internationals in the events but I'm pretty sure the 60's through the 80's had quite a bit less as you go back in time.

 

This is just the US Open. Obviously when other countries got involved in the British Open the Scots found that it was much harder to have someone from their country take home the Claret Jug. They took home the first 27 titles because that's who mainly made up the field but they have only won 2 of the last 95 years or so. That is because the field got exponentially stronger from adding more and more internationals.

 

Today, all four majors have all the top 50 in the world (or more), and guys who are eligible very rarely skip one. Golf wasn't like that until the late 80s or early 90s.

 

Go back and look at the 70s and especially 60s Open fields, and you'll probably be surprised at how often even the very best Americans (other than Jack and Trevino) skipped. Casper only played it five times in total. Floyd didn't regularly play until 1975. Irwin only played it a couple of times in the 80s, etc. Even Arnie didn't play the Open every year. I did this a while back, and in one year I picked at random, the Open field only had 3 of the top 10 of that year's PGA Tour money list.

 

On the other hand, Faldo, Woosnam, Lyle, Olazabal, etc didn't play the PGA much during the 80s and they didn't always play the US Open either. Seve won the Open in '79, but didn't play the PGA until 1981. You'd never see something like that today. Peter Thomson won the Open 5 times, but he only played the US Open five times, and he never played the PGA.

[widow-maker]

TW Fans will always say TW regardless of how you wanna argue it.

 

Same goes for Nicklaus fans.

 

I think a lot of it may be generational. At 27, my generation never saw Jack play. We did however see Tiger absolutely crush fields and change the sport of Golf.

 

 

 

 

 

About Jack, I did start playing 1981 and there was nearly no TV coverage of golf in Scandinavia those days. But I guess there are some of you good folks here who started playing earlier and could follow jack on TV, maybe from week to week. Maybe even IRL? Did you ever find him as dominant as Tiger was? Can you explain the greatness of Nicklaus as you saw it?

 

 

Tiger was more of a killer. Jack wasn't trying to be dominant. He was just trying to win. So many times Jack showed up to a major without having his "A" game but yet was somehow in contention on the back 9 on Sunday. He could make a 71 out of a 75 better than anyone I've ever seen. His record of 2nd, 3rd, and top 5's in majors is astounding and nobody is even close to it. He didn't live and breathe golf 365 days a year, but when he showed up to a major he was ready to compete.

 

You can't compare era's. The ball, the equipment, training, trackman, video, chipping coaches, putting coaches... the game has evolved and scoring has improved over the years. You can't deny that. So to me, I tend to look at these types of conversations as to how each player did in his own era. Tiger would kill Walter Hagen if each played their own game. But, how would Hagen do if he played currently with all of the technological advances. How would Tiger do if he went back in time and had to use the equipment of the day and lived in those times and conditions? We don't know and can't answer that. Today's players have lower scoring averages so they're better in that sense. But, how they compete against their own, how they handle pressure, how they raise their game when in contention... those types of things are comparable in a sense. Tiger and Jack stand out when you look at how they did within their eras. Tiger was dominant within his era for 10 years, and he won an astounding number of tournaments in that time span when you look beyond the majors. Jack was consistently great over a longer period of time, and his overall record in majors is unchallenged. Each of us can choose which is more impressive based on our own criteria. It's a good debate but there's never going to be a definitive answer because we all use different criteria in our judgements.

[deadsolid...shank]

For those that say there is no proof of era. Let's drop the GOAT talk for a moment and compare eras. Of the Top 37 all time winners on the PGA tour 19 were born in the first 22 years. Thats from 1890 Willie McFarlane to the 1912 group of Hogan-Nelson-Snead. 19 of 37 in 22 years! 11 of the top 37 were born from 1913-1947. Longer span and fewer winners. Would anyone disagree that Jacks' era was tougher than the previous? From 1948 on-so most of them are well finished with their career as they are 50-70 with the additions no less of Woods Mickelson and Els there are just 7.

So in conclusion the guys over a century ago were the greatest of all time because they won more? If you say "no of course not" then the argument of Jacks' era having the greatest champions is also out the window because they had less depth-meaning more individual wins as well.

 

Does anyone think that Cy Young is the greatest pitcher in history? Every single era has built on the previous to get better. Let's ignore the bigger stronger debate and just go with better. In MLB pitchers and hitters use Trackman and other devices to tune their pitching and hitting to the max. And you don't believe that gives them as edge on Ruth Gehrig and Feller?

 

Why is it not possible for tour players to improve?

 

I am with Butch- "Jack is the greatest champion, but Tiger is the best player I have ever seen"

 

I’m ok with that statement by Butch. Which again circles us back to how we define GOAT.

[bscinstnct]

Determining the best, who played the best golf, *is objective*.

 

TW had was an equal putter (at least) to Jack. Equal in long and short appraoches.

 

But far superior around the green/wedge game.

 

Some say Jacks driving was much better thsn TW. That TW "sprayed the ball" especially later in his dominant period. And his iron/short game made up for it.

 

But, check the stats.

 

TW driving in 2006,

 

3rd is SG off the tee (.80, that is a significant). Combined with,

 

1st in SG tee to green

 

1st in SG approach to the green

 

21st in SG putting

 

We get 1st in SG total (3.44) and

 

1st in brirdie average

 

1st in scoring

 

Combined with equality in the subjective, mental toughness, clutch etc

 

TW edges Jack out.

 

Furthermore,

 

Lets go Yankees!

[Hankshank]

Jack or Tiger. Or someone else. But anyhow, go into the Tiger page on pgatour.com and show his results. Start at 1998 and go forward, stepwise year by year. I do that once in a while, just to remember, it's totally hillarious reading.

https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.08793.tiger-woods.html

[TheMoneyShot]

T dubs, enough said!

[CHER2]

Wow...I just did a random check on Faldo. I would have thought he would have been a guy to play in most majors no matter where but you are right. From 1976 to 1987 he played in every British Open (12 total with 8 top 12's and 1 win) and he totaled (11 appearances) in the USO, Masters, and PGA combined in the same years. This was early in his career but I would have to believe he qualified in a lot more US majors than he played. Only 1 USO, 4 Masters, and 6 PGA's compared to 12 British Opens.

 

Assuming he qualified he missed out on about 25 majors in that stretch. Even if he only qualified for 75% of them he missed out on 18 or so. He played in every major from 1988 to 2002.

[Finbarr Saunders]

People are putting a lot of onus onto Butch Harmons words, this is the same man that believes in unicorns and that the path of the club is responsible for the direction the ball starts on. Jack is the greatest champion/greatest golfer to ever play the game and 18 majors prove that

[CHER2]

Wow...I just did a random check on Faldo. I would have thought he would have been a guy to play in most majors no matter where but you are right. From 1976 to 1987 he played in every British Open (12 total with 8 top 12's and 1 win) and he totaled (11 appearances) in the USO, Masters, and PGA combined in the same years. This was early in his career but I would have to believe he qualified in a lot more US majors than he played. Only 1 USO, 4 Masters, and 6 PGA's compared to 12 British Opens.

 

Assuming he qualified he missed out on about 25 majors in that stretch. Even if he only qualified for 75% of them he missed out on 18 or so. He played in every major from 1988 to 2002.

 

Peter Thompson had 21 appearances in the British Open from 1951 to 1971. 18 top 10 finishes, 9 Top 3's, and 5 wins!! He played in ONLY 13 US majors without much success. Perhaps some of that can be due to jet lag or having time to get familiar with the course etc. Coming from Australia I am sure it wasn't an easy thing to do half way across the world in the 50's and 60's. Today a lot of these guys will spend at least a couple weeks in the US building up to a major if they are from Australia...reducing jet lag and getting familiar with the course.

[lowheel]

TW Fans will always say TW regardless of how you wanna argue it.

 

Same goes for Nicklaus fans.

 

I think a lot of it may be generational. At 27, my generation never saw Jack play. We did however see Tiger absolutely crush fields and change the sport of Golf.

 

If Tiger had Jack's health and longevity, who's to say what kind of record books would be rewritten. We'll never get to know that.

 

It's Tiger vs. Jack, MJ vs. Kobe, Joe Montana vs. Tom Brady, etc. - everyone has their opinion of which is the "GOAT" and typically there's no changing that view.

 

That being said - I'm going TW, Kobe, and TB12 :)

 

 

Not true. Tiger wins 4 more majors and I'll have to think hard about it.

 

Thats really the crust of the argument ive been making. Separate emotion from reason. Ive even commented in the past that if he even gets 2 or 3 more the argument can be made. its not a all or nothing position.

[deadsolid...shank]

TW Fans will always say TW regardless of how you wanna argue it.

 

Same goes for Nicklaus fans.

 

I think a lot of it may be generational. At 27, my generation never saw Jack play. We did however see Tiger absolutely crush fields and change the sport of Golf.

 

If Tiger had Jack's health and longevity, who's to say what kind of record books would be rewritten. We'll never get to know that.

 

It's Tiger vs. Jack, MJ vs. Kobe, Joe Montana vs. Tom Brady, etc. - everyone has their opinion of which is the "GOAT" and typically there's no changing that view.

 

That being said - I'm going TW, Kobe, and TB12 :)

 

 

Not true. Tiger wins 4 more majors and I'll have to think hard about it.

 

Thats really the crust of the argument ive been making. Separate emotion from reason. Ive even commented in the past that if he even gets 2 or 3 more the argument can be made. its not a all or nothing position.

 

The thing to remember is that majors were everyone’s benchmark when it was very likely that Tiger would pass Jack. It’s only in the past few years when it’s started to look like Tiger most likely won’t reach 18 that all the other criteria started appearing.

 

I would be very interested to see if anyone can come up with posts from prior to 2008 that put more emphasis on these other criteria than the the major total.

 

They might actually be there, I just don’t remember seeing many.

[lowheel]

Heres the problem Shil, its the position of tiger fans aka you that tiger deserves more points/credit because his era was "tougher" which is easily disprovable. Jack fans never said his era was tougher, they said there were more multiple major winners who wouldnt back down and outright stole majors from Jack instead of rolling over.Big difference. As i said besides YE yang, which HOFer stole a major from tiger? has tiger ever come back to take a major? these are important questions that you can brush off but really determine the reality of the situation. Im not some emotional teenager incapable of critical thought and give tiger credit on multiple fronts. hes clearly a superior wedge player to jack but only because he played in a era of 3-4 wedges with custom grinds/bounce and tightly mown grasses that simply didnt exist in that era.When the grasses started to change and having a wedge game became more necessary in the mid 70s Jack adjusted and became one of the best. Look at his 1980-81-82-83 performances in the majors.He was hitting a variety of wedge shots from around the greens that he wasnt hitting 10 years previously because the game didnt dictate he needed those.Still though, I will gladly concede tiger the better short game/wedge player.i will also concede he edged Jack in closing tourneys out. Not that Jack was bad at that mind you but tiger simply did it in a more clinical fashion.Another point i could concede is working his irons, in his prime Tiger worked the ball more than jack but Jack hit more greens consistently so its a wash for me. Ill even say Tiger had better escape/trouble shot ability but mostly due to his wildness so its a wash again Other than that tiger did nothing better than Jack so unless he gets at least 2 more majors the conversation hasnt changed. youre welcome to cling to best player versus best champion position but remember that argument came up around 2012-2013 when it was obvious tiger was done winning majors.Coincidence? i think not

 

Also heres another quote from butch: "nobody and I mean nobody not jack not tiger ever hit it as good as Hogan".

[lowheel]

TW Fans will always say TW regardless of how you wanna argue it.

 

Same goes for Nicklaus fans.

 

I think a lot of it may be generational. At 27, my generation never saw Jack play. We did however see Tiger absolutely crush fields and change the sport of Golf.

 

If Tiger had Jack's health and longevity, who's to say what kind of record books would be rewritten. We'll never get to know that.

 

It's Tiger vs. Jack, MJ vs. Kobe, Joe Montana vs. Tom Brady, etc. - everyone has their opinion of which is the "GOAT" and typically there's no changing that view.

 

That being said - I'm going TW, Kobe, and TB12 :)

 

 

Not true. Tiger wins 4 more majors and I'll have to think hard about it.

 

Thats really the crust of the argument ive been making. Separate emotion from reason. Ive even commented in the past that if he even gets 2 or 3 more the argument can be made. its not a all or nothing position.

 

The thing to remember is that majors were everyone’s benchmark when it was very likely that Tiger would pass Jack. It’s only in the past few years when it’s started to look like Tiger most likely won’t reach 18 that all the other criteria started appearing.

 

I would be very interested to see if anyone can come up with posts from prior to 2008 that put more emphasis on these other criteria than the the major total.

 

They might actually be there, I just don’t remember seeing many.

 

As i posted above its a recent position originating in 2011-2012 when it was obvious days of tiger wining tourneys let alone majors was really in doubt.I had this exact discussion in 2013 when tiger won 5 tourneys.i simply said it was a hot putting year at familiar venues although the TPC win is impressive on paper since hes struggled there he was paired with lightweights who melted in sunday pressure and tiger kept it simple to laugh his way to the finish line even after doubling 14 on sunday similar to Phil intimidating ohair when he won there in 09 i believe. he did nothing at the majors to convince me he was a threat anymore.His lost look on sunday at the british open said it all to me.His eyes said "I dont have it anymore". So then when year after year pased without winning sprouted the tiger is the best player, jack is the greatest champion argument and how tigers era was tougher than Jacks and then WGCs and so on. The greatest one that make me giggle is how tour wins are a better gauge than majors... Watching tiger in the majors in 2015 made me feel sorry for him actually, it was embarrassing for a player of his legendary status

[bscinstnct]

Of course TW lost a step.

 

Jack did as well.

 

Once he hit 35 he went through a 4 year period where he won one major.

 

But he won 2 at 40.

 

So, just because TW lost a step, you cant say that, even if healthy, he was *done* winning them considering he won 8 times in 2 years (2012, 2013).

 

You think a guy who won 8 times in 2 years, if he stayed healthy, was incapable of winning majors?

 

Its academic, of course.

 

But Jack scratched and clawed to get those last 4 majors over an 11 year stretch.

[Guia]

I have seen Palmer, and Nicklaus in there prime. Nicklaus was the best of his era, but, Tiger is the most complete player I have ever witnessed. I always felt that Tiger could give anyone 1 a side and still win.

[Conrad1953]

Who doesn't think that IF Tiger had stayed healthy he would have 20 majors

and 100 total PGA Tour wins by now.......................AT LEAST!!

 

Ya ya, I know it's academic but I figured Tiger would have 25 majors by the

time he was done.....and I had A LOT of company in thinking that....including

many of you I'm sure....if asked before all this sh** happened.