Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

* * * * * 1 votes

Does Tiger Woods need golf more than golf needs Tiger Woods?


287 replies to this topic

#241 bladehunter

bladehunter

    Cubs win ! Cubs win!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,754 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 12070

Posted 06 October 2017 - 07:30 AM

View PostTim Schoch, on 05 October 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

Some of you must be too young and have missed Tiger’s magic over his game, the field, and the golf ball.  I grew up with Arnie and Jack. When Tiger hit and kept hitting, the world was in awe. His legacy is much more than wins. He literally intimidated the game.  

No he didnt win more majors. But the experience of witnessing his power may never come again, no matter what the stats are.

I figure he wont be back. He has proved himself in his prime, so why would he come back?  Money?  Maybe. To win more majors?  Not sure he has it anymore—we don’t know, but probably not.


this is the point being missed..... 2000 us open is all one needs to see to know that tiger played a level of golf Jack never saw.....  he didnt break jacks record..but put those two in their primes in a vaccum , and let them play for a year... tiger wins more...  just does..  so boils down to whether you prefer long term stats that arent comparabe because of eras or head to head real ability
Wonderful article below gives a first hand account of that week.  


http://amp.timeinc.n...open?source=dam

Edited by bladehunter, 06 October 2017 - 07:39 AM.

17 M2 V2 8  tour head  Aldila Tour Blue 85 TX  (Tour only Rogue Graphics)
17 M1 14.5   tour head Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
17 M2 17.5   tour head Aerotech 70 F6 Prototype
Vega VDC-01 Raw Handground 3-pw Modus 130X
Vega VW-02 Raw  56 60 Modus 130S
009 GSS 1.5  , Beached, tungsten sole weights
Bridgestone B330S

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#242 Jacked_Loft

Jacked_Loft

    Giant Steps Ahead

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 449174
  • Joined: 12/17/2016
  • Location:Gone fishin'
  • Handicap:Nix
GolfWRX Likes : 205

Posted 06 October 2017 - 09:55 AM

The 2000 US Open was a statement.

A friend and I had a chance to stand on the range behind Tiger at the 2001 SAP Open in St. Leon Rot, when Tiger shot -22 for the week.

We watched him hit 6 2 irons from the deck divided into 2 fades, 2 straight and 2 draws. Every ball landed within a 10 foot circle, and every divot was exactly the same shape, size and depth. I have never seen such a ball striking exhibition before or after vaguely close to that, and I've been around.

What impressed me even more is that TW didn't look left, right, didn't speak to anyone or even acknowledge anyones presence or existance for about 20 minutes. He was a killer machine with a target in his eye, and it was almost scary.

Later that day Tiger hit a 7 iron swish into the cup on the 13th hole of the last round, which just blew Michael Campbell's chances for the W out the window. MC was visably deflated by the shot and just couldn't make anything else happen during the round.

I'm sure Jack was always a "piece of work" for his competitors, but Tiger (at least at tht time) was an insurmountable obstacle to his peers.

After reading all the new postings in this thread I'll revise my position to:

"Golf needed Tiger, and Tiger needed golf". Times have changed, but the golfing world somehow still kind of misses Tiger.

Edited by Jacked_Loft, 06 October 2017 - 10:17 AM.

WIMB:

M2 10.5° Kuro Kage 60 S
M1 3 & 5 FW Kuro Kage 70 S
P790 3 Iron Nippon 950 S
P770 4-PW & AW Nippon 950 S
Cally Sure Out 58° Anti PitchYip
TP Platinum Putter SS GTR 2.0
Sun Mountain Carry Bag & Titleist Competition

2

#243 lowheel

lowheel

    LOWHEEL

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 193008
  • Joined: 07/18/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 1595

Posted 06 October 2017 - 07:26 PM

View Postbladehunter, on 06 October 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

View PostTim Schoch, on 05 October 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

Some of you must be too young and have missed Tiger's magic over his game, the field, and the golf ball.  I grew up with Arnie and Jack. When Tiger hit and kept hitting, the world was in awe. His legacy is much more than wins. He literally intimidated the game.  

No he didnt win more majors. But the experience of witnessing his power may never come again, no matter what the stats are.

I figure he wont be back. He has proved himself in his prime, so why would he come back?  Money?  Maybe. To win more majors?  Not sure he has it anymore—we don't know, but probably not.


this is the point being missed..... 2000 us open is all one needs to see to know that tiger played a level of golf Jack never saw.....  he didnt break jacks record..but put those two in their primes in a vaccum , and let them play for a year... tiger wins more...  just does..  so boils down to whether you prefer long term stats that arent comparabe because of eras or head to head real ability
Wonderful article below gives a first hand account of that week.  


http://amp.timeinc.n...open?source=dam

Laughable and not even close to reality. Your feelings dont matter. Bring some tangible arguments to the table. Stop diminishing one to elevate the other. Tiger never reached jacks height in majors period, not debatable and no winning a few by a bunch doesnt really mean anything in the grand scheme of totals. he never re reached the 2000 us open heights. it was a once in lifetime performance at one event. 10 years later at the same venue, same tournament Gregory Havret dusted him on sunday while tiger crumbled. 10 years after 72 at pebble nicklaus had to have another generational player Watson take an open away from him at age 42. thats Jack in a nutshell. Explain to me tigers record  in majors in his 30s versus jacks record in his 30s if tiger was so far superior.ill eagerly await your argument putting tiger ahead of jack and how tiger would win more when he never has?

Edited by lowheel, 06 October 2017 - 07:35 PM.


3

#244 lowheel

lowheel

    LOWHEEL

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 193008
  • Joined: 07/18/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 1595

Posted 06 October 2017 - 07:29 PM

View Postironcat, on 06 October 2017 - 04:01 AM, said:

View Postlowheel, on 05 October 2017 - 02:34 PM, said:

Talent is subjective. Was tiger flashier? sure but jack would wear him down just like his career wore him down. How many majors did tiger win in his 30s? 4  Jack 8. Compare their major records in their 30s and it shows how much more dominant jack was. heck jack added 4 in his 40s
Thats sustained greatness. tiger was going to hit a wall and did. longevity matters and jack crushes tiger in that regard. its barely debatable. Dont mistake words like talent and actual results. jack stands alone whether you prefer tiger or not. He was incredible for sure just didnt pass jack where it matters to hold that title. Sorry thems the breaks. tiger has nothing to be disappointed in hes easily 2nd best ever to play  not too shabby but to elveate him past jack because hes more "talented" is ridiculous 25 years of greatness > 12-13 years of greatness

PS remember when Weiskopf and Miller were called more talented than Nicklaus? yeah good times. how did they turn out?

Jack won more Majors.

Tiger was the better golfer.

love mental gymnastics. if he was better hed have surpassed the inferior players record. didnt happen so...

Remember when Tiger won a major by 7 shots at age 40? oh thats right, that was Jack "the inferior player"
the same guy who had 1 less major in his 40s than tiger had in his 30s but tell me again how he was better...
Oh that right his fist bumps and red shirts were really flashy so theres that. the other guy just sheepishly smiled for 25 years and wrecked his competitors in majors over 2.5 decades with little to no fanfare. Boring some may say but in the end the best of all time.

Edited by lowheel, 06 October 2017 - 07:37 PM.


4

#245 chippa13

chippa13

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,872 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 394742
  • Joined: 09/04/2015
  • Location:NH
GolfWRX Likes : 1184

Posted 06 October 2017 - 09:08 PM

Can't folks just accept they were both phenomenal golfers who dominated the game for a time? You all react as if you caught the other side shooting your dog and attacking your sister.


5

#246 Shilgy

Shilgy

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,215 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 235237
  • Joined: 03/07/2013
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Handicap:4.0
GolfWRX Likes : 4985

Posted 06 October 2017 - 09:09 PM

Oh for crying out loud. Sometimes your smugness in using majors as the only metric is laughable as well. It's like calling Horry better than Jordan. Funny how the major metric gets lost when someone wants to call a Floyd or Els greater than a Casper.
  Remember when Jack won his 79th event to match Tiger?  Oops.

Edited by Shilgy, 06 October 2017 - 10:30 PM.

TM M1 8.5* Graphite Design BB6s
TM M1 3w 14*  Graphite Design BB7s
Srixon U65 18° Atmos Red 7s
Adams A12 UST Silver S 21°
Srixon Z765 5-AW Nippon Pro Modus3 125S
Cleveland  RTX CB 54* 58* Nippon 125 wedge
Toulon Garage Rochester/ Toulon Rochester

To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened .  :)

6

#247 bladehunter

bladehunter

    Cubs win ! Cubs win!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,754 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 12070

Posted 06 October 2017 - 10:52 PM

View Postlowheel, on 06 October 2017 - 07:26 PM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 06 October 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

View PostTim Schoch, on 05 October 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

Some of you must be too young and have missed Tiger's magic over his game, the field, and the golf ball.  I grew up with Arnie and Jack. When Tiger hit and kept hitting, the world was in awe. His legacy is much more than wins. He literally intimidated the game.  

No he didnt win more majors. But the experience of witnessing his power may never come again, no matter what the stats are.

I figure he wont be back. He has proved himself in his prime, so why would he come back?  Money?  Maybe. To win more majors?  Not sure he has it anymore—we don't know, but probably not.


this is the point being missed..... 2000 us open is all one needs to see to know that tiger played a level of golf Jack never saw.....  he didnt break jacks record..but put those two in their primes in a vaccum , and let them play for a year... tiger wins more...  just does..  so boils down to whether you prefer long term stats that arent comparabe because of eras or head to head real ability
Wonderful article below gives a first hand account of that week.  


http://amp.timeinc.n...open?source=dam

Laughable and not even close to reality. Your feelings dont matter. Bring some tangible arguments to the table. Stop diminishing one to elevate the other. Tiger never reached jacks height in majors period, not debatable and no winning a few by a bunch doesnt really mean anything in the grand scheme of totals. he never re reached the 2000 us open heights. it was a once in lifetime performance at one event. 10 years later at the same venue, same tournament Gregory Havret dusted him on sunday while tiger crumbled. 10 years after 72 at pebble nicklaus had to have another generational player Watson take an open away from him at age 42. thats Jack in a nutshell. Explain to me tigers record  in majors in his 30s versus jacks record in his 30s if tiger was so far superior.ill eagerly await your argument putting tiger ahead of jack and how tiger would win more when he never has?




im laughing too..  But its at the idea that Jack ( who had hunter mahans shortgame) played to the level Tiger reached...  it just didnt happen....  Jack was great ( im actually named after him much to my grandfathers disgust as he was a Palmer fan to the bone) but he did not play the best golf thats ever been played..period....  that cant be argued in my opinion... we wil just have to agree to disagree...   majors arent the only measure... esecially when there are certainly considerations to be made for depth of fields and number of years played....
17 M2 V2 8  tour head  Aldila Tour Blue 85 TX  (Tour only Rogue Graphics)
17 M1 14.5   tour head Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
17 M2 17.5   tour head Aerotech 70 F6 Prototype
Vega VDC-01 Raw Handground 3-pw Modus 130X
Vega VW-02 Raw  56 60 Modus 130S
009 GSS 1.5  , Beached, tungsten sole weights
Bridgestone B330S

7

#248 lowheel

lowheel

    LOWHEEL

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 193008
  • Joined: 07/18/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 1595

Posted 07 October 2017 - 01:52 AM

View PostShilgy, on 06 October 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

Oh for crying out loud. Sometimes your smugness in using majors as the only metric is laughable as well. It's like calling Horry better than Jordan. Funny how the major metric gets lost when someone wants to call a Floyd or Els greater than a Casper.
  Remember when Jack won his 79th event to match Tiger?  Oops.

Shil, are you comparing team sports to individual sports? My smugness is in response to team tiger pr on here spouting their nonsense. Im sure Jack is crying himself to sleep that he didnt reach Snead or or tigers # of wins... he has the ones that matter on top of the results in those events that matter. How do you dispute this? oh i know tell me how it was easier for jack to finish 2nd and 3rd back then because of lack of depth. Rinse and repeat. Doesnt explain how he maintained his greatness for longer than tiger though now does it? have at it

Also tiger has like 5-6 wins more than Jack, Billy Casper has 30 more wins than Floyd and floyd only has 1 more major not really comparable in my mind. Ernies euro tour record makes it a better discussion with casper but again he has more than 2.5 times his wins on tour and 1 more major.If Ernie finished with 5-6 majors i easily put him above caper but  you chose bad examples. those guys are in trevinos tier. I personally have trevino above casper, watson above casper, Also Phil above Casper. i have alot of respect for Casper but he should have more majors especially since 1 was gifted to him by arnie
watson has 12 less wins than Casper has but almost 3 times the majors whos better? ;)
Player has half the wins Casper has but 3 times the majors whos better? ;)

Edited by lowheel, 07 October 2017 - 02:37 AM.


8

#249 lowheel

lowheel

    LOWHEEL

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 193008
  • Joined: 07/18/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 1595

Posted 07 October 2017 - 02:13 AM

View Postbladehunter, on 06 October 2017 - 10:52 PM, said:

View Postlowheel, on 06 October 2017 - 07:26 PM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 06 October 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

View PostTim Schoch, on 05 October 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

Some of you must be too young and have missed Tiger's magic over his game, the field, and the golf ball.  I grew up with Arnie and Jack. When Tiger hit and kept hitting, the world was in awe. His legacy is much more than wins. He literally intimidated the game.  

No he didnt win more majors. But the experience of witnessing his power may never come again, no matter what the stats are.

I figure he wont be back. He has proved himself in his prime, so why would he come back?  Money?  Maybe. To win more majors?  Not sure he has it anymore—we don't know, but probably not.


this is the point being missed..... 2000 us open is all one needs to see to know that tiger played a level of golf Jack never saw.....  he didnt break jacks record..but put those two in their primes in a vaccum , and let them play for a year... tiger wins more...  just does..  so boils down to whether you prefer long term stats that arent comparabe because of eras or head to head real ability
Wonderful article below gives a first hand account of that week.  


http://amp.timeinc.n...open?source=dam

Laughable and not even close to reality. Your feelings dont matter. Bring some tangible arguments to the table. Stop diminishing one to elevate the other. Tiger never reached jacks height in majors period, not debatable and no winning a few by a bunch doesnt really mean anything in the grand scheme of totals. he never re reached the 2000 us open heights. it was a once in lifetime performance at one event. 10 years later at the same venue, same tournament Gregory Havret dusted him on sunday while tiger crumbled. 10 years after 72 at pebble nicklaus had to have another generational player Watson take an open away from him at age 42. thats Jack in a nutshell. Explain to me tigers record  in majors in his 30s versus jacks record in his 30s if tiger was so far superior.ill eagerly await your argument putting tiger ahead of jack and how tiger would win more when he never has?




im laughing too..  But its at the idea that Jack ( who had hunter mahans shortgame) played to the level Tiger reached...  it just didnt happen....  Jack was great ( im actually named after him much to my grandfathers disgust as he was a Palmer fan to the bone) but he did not play the best golf thats ever been played..period....  that cant be argued in my opinion... we wil just have to agree to disagree...   majors arent the only measure... esecially when there are certainly considerations to be made for depth of fields and number of years played....

Now youre getting delusional. tiger had a ball and lob wedge Jack didnt because they didnt exist yet!!!!. because Jack didnt hit a flop shot doesnt diminish or tarnish his legacy at all. your argument is jack didnt have tiger short game? great Tiger didnt hit as many greens and fairways as jack. their putting is a wash there 2-1 jack.Is that good for you?
He did play the best golf ever because in the biggest events he stands alone in 1st, 2nd, 3rds top 5s, top 10s and so on over 30 years. 58 year old jack beat 22 year old Tiger at the masters in 2008. how did this cripple with a bad hip and terrible short game beat your messiah ? you are more impressed with the flash of one but the #s are video game like in favor of jack in the majors. how do you square that?
Phil has more top 10s than tiger in majors...
I cant stress this enough i love tiger and his game but you cant compare the tools one had versus the other and use it as a detriment or advantage for one over the other. they dominated their respective generation.One just did it for longer and performed better at the big ones. this is undeniable. if their records are reversed and jack ends with 6 more wins and 4 less majors and the major performances are reversed im team tiger all day everyday but removing emotion from the equation i can soberly say he just didnt get there. Forget peak, forget 2000 US open or 97 masters. one dominated for roughly 9 years and ones did it for 17-18 years. too many hills to climb to make that case. i guarantee you in 20 years if im lucky enough to be around and people start chipping away at tigers record and saying his era was weak and that other trash we always hear when enough time passes ill defend tigers record to death.

Edited by lowheel, 07 October 2017 - 02:31 AM.


9

#250 Jacked_Loft

Jacked_Loft

    Giant Steps Ahead

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 449174
  • Joined: 12/17/2016
  • Location:Gone fishin'
  • Handicap:Nix
GolfWRX Likes : 205

Posted 07 October 2017 - 04:07 AM

I'm going to reduce this arguement to the basic facts.

A Professional golfer plays golf to make money, not just to accumulate trophies or titles. That said the majors are not only the most prestigious of titles, but also the best (aside from the FedEx Cup) paydays.

So reduced to a nutshell: in my eyes the player who made the most money is the GOAT and basta.

Professional Golfers Adjusted Earnings (only US PGA Tour):


Player    Earnings

Sam Snead   $200,865,773
Jack Nicklaus    $175,089,264
Ben Hogan    $160,060,367
Arnold Palmer   $145,792,246
Byron Nelson    $133,291,270
Billy Casper   $120,367,151
Tiger Woods $117,701,914
Julius Boros $107,186,617
Lloyd Mangrum $107,109,276
Tom Watson $105,572,013

This list is not totally correct as some events when adjusted present another cash value. After all is said and done, we have this:

Adjusted career earnings PGA Tour:

Jack: $216,517,996
Tiger:    $161,695,951
Sam: $157,941,645
Arnie:    $149,869,694

The full list is here for your reading enjoyment:

http://armchairgm.wi...All-Time_Top_30

In my eyes there is no way to quantify who was the best other than cash. Intangibles such as majors, wins, equipment, greenkeeping standards or sponserships deem just to reduce the discussion to a schoolyard shouting match.

Edited by Jacked_Loft, 07 October 2017 - 04:27 AM.

WIMB:

M2 10.5° Kuro Kage 60 S
M1 3 & 5 FW Kuro Kage 70 S
P790 3 Iron Nippon 950 S
P770 4-PW & AW Nippon 950 S
Cally Sure Out 58° Anti PitchYip
TP Platinum Putter SS GTR 2.0
Sun Mountain Carry Bag & Titleist Competition

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#251 nochct1

nochct1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,192 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 57177
  • Joined: 06/03/2008
  • Ebay ID:dlcloser
GolfWRX Likes : 1833

Posted 07 October 2017 - 08:37 AM

View Postlowheel, on 06 October 2017 - 07:26 PM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 06 October 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

View PostTim Schoch, on 05 October 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

Some of you must be too young and have missed Tiger's magic over his game, the field, and the golf ball.  I grew up with Arnie and Jack. When Tiger hit and kept hitting, the world was in awe. His legacy is much more than wins. He literally intimidated the game.  

No he didnt win more majors. But the experience of witnessing his power may never come again, no matter what the stats are.

I figure he wont be back. He has proved himself in his prime, so why would he come back?  Money?  Maybe. To win more majors?  Not sure he has it anymore—we don't know, but probably not.


this is the point being missed..... 2000 us open is all one needs to see to know that tiger played a level of golf Jack never saw.....  he didnt break jacks record..but put those two in their primes in a vaccum , and let them play for a year... tiger wins more...  just does..  so boils down to whether you prefer long term stats that arent comparabe because of eras or head to head real ability
Wonderful article below gives a first hand account of that week.  


http://amp.timeinc.n...open?source=dam

Laughable and not even close to reality. Your feelings dont matter. Bring some tangible arguments to the table. Stop diminishing one to elevate the other. Tiger never reached jacks height in majors period, not debatable and no winning a few by a bunch doesnt really mean anything in the grand scheme of totals. he never re reached the 2000 us open heights. it was a once in lifetime performance at one event. 10 years later at the same venue, same tournament Gregory Havret dusted him on sunday while tiger crumbled. 10 years after 72 at pebble nicklaus had to have another generational player Watson take an open away from him at age 42. thats Jack in a nutshell. Explain to me tigers record  in majors in his 30s versus jacks record in his 30s if tiger was so far superior.ill eagerly await your argument putting tiger ahead of jack and how tiger would win more when he never has?

Why are you so obsessed w Majors? Do you really think Jack's first British Open is some amazing win over the best field in golf? The British Open for many years was similar to the Australian Open. A handful of US players but mostly overseas players. It became a major because Palmer decided it should be one.

If a major is supposed to be a gathering of the worlds best players then early British Opens fall well short.

Today we have Majors, WGC and a handful of other tournaments that bring the best players in the world together. Tiger didn't just win 14 Majors / 79 tournaments. He won against the best fields in golf on a regular basis.

And stop with the stupid lob Wedge / equipment argument. Tiger set records at all levels with all types of equipment. If anything advances in equipment hurt him more than it helped him.

11

#252 Shilgy

Shilgy

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,215 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 235237
  • Joined: 03/07/2013
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Handicap:4.0
GolfWRX Likes : 4985

Posted 07 October 2017 - 09:47 AM

Sometimes instead of majors majors majors I keep hearing Marcia Marcia Marcia :)

It's the usual argument guys. Tiger vs Jack majors are (conveniently) ALL that matters. Any other comparison there starts to be a ton or rationalization to get the list where they want.  
  Geez, we even start to talk about Phil having more top 10's in majors than Tiger. Hope in the world is that relevant? Does anyone but Low think that makes their stats comparable in any way?
  Year after year a decade after decade, the leading on tour has been a relatively static number. Equipment changes, players get stronger, there after more players bunched together than on the past, but the leader has been about the same high 68's low 69's EXCEPT a decade and a half of Tiger.
  Funny how adamant some are that Jack played the best golf because of four events. Nocht pointed out, and Jack has stated that he had a lot fewer players to contend with. Does anyone think Emmitt Smith was the best running back in history? Yards gained is THE start isn't it? I'll take Brown, Sanders or Bo many day. Others as well.
  But it's time to close this discussion because evidently there is nothing to discuss. This is the list of greatest golfers in history. Period. PS it's amazing how many of them played long long ago. I wonder why?

https://en.m.wikiped...winning_golfers
TM M1 8.5* Graphite Design BB6s
TM M1 3w 14*  Graphite Design BB7s
Srixon U65 18° Atmos Red 7s
Adams A12 UST Silver S 21°
Srixon Z765 5-AW Nippon Pro Modus3 125S
Cleveland  RTX CB 54* 58* Nippon 125 wedge
Toulon Garage Rochester/ Toulon Rochester

To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened .  :)

12

#253 lowheel

lowheel

    LOWHEEL

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 193008
  • Joined: 07/18/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 1595

Posted 07 October 2017 - 02:15 PM

View Postnochct1, on 07 October 2017 - 08:37 AM, said:

View Postlowheel, on 06 October 2017 - 07:26 PM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 06 October 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

View PostTim Schoch, on 05 October 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

Some of you must be too young and have missed Tiger's magic over his game, the field, and the golf ball.  I grew up with Arnie and Jack. When Tiger hit and kept hitting, the world was in awe. His legacy is much more than wins. He literally intimidated the game.  

No he didnt win more majors. But the experience of witnessing his power may never come again, no matter what the stats are.

I figure he wont be back. He has proved himself in his prime, so why would he come back?  Money?  Maybe. To win more majors?  Not sure he has it anymore—we don't know, but probably not.


this is the point being missed..... 2000 us open is all one needs to see to know that tiger played a level of golf Jack never saw.....  he didnt break jacks record..but put those two in their primes in a vaccum , and let them play for a year... tiger wins more...  just does..  so boils down to whether you prefer long term stats that arent comparabe because of eras or head to head real ability
Wonderful article below gives a first hand account of that week.  


http://amp.timeinc.n...open?source=dam

Laughable and not even close to reality. Your feelings dont matter. Bring some tangible arguments to the table. Stop diminishing one to elevate the other. Tiger never reached jacks height in majors period, not debatable and no winning a few by a bunch doesnt really mean anything in the grand scheme of totals. he never re reached the 2000 us open heights. it was a once in lifetime performance at one event. 10 years later at the same venue, same tournament Gregory Havret dusted him on sunday while tiger crumbled. 10 years after 72 at pebble nicklaus had to have another generational player Watson take an open away from him at age 42. thats Jack in a nutshell. Explain to me tigers record  in majors in his 30s versus jacks record in his 30s if tiger was so far superior.ill eagerly await your argument putting tiger ahead of jack and how tiger would win more when he never has?

Why are you so obsessed w Majors? Do you really think Jack's first British Open is some amazing win over the best field in golf? The British Open for many years was similar to the Australian Open. A handful of US players but mostly overseas players. It became a major because Palmer decided it should be one.

If a major is supposed to be a gathering of the worlds best players then early British Opens fall well short.

Today we have Majors, WGC and a handful of other tournaments that bring the best players in the world together. Tiger didn't just win 14 Majors / 79 tournaments. He won against the best fields in golf on a regular basis.

And stop with the stupid lob Wedge / equipment argument. Tiger set records at all levels with all types of equipment. If anything advances in equipment hurt him more than it helped him.

So i guess tigers british opens dont mean anything either right? you diminish Jacks era to elevate Tiger. WGCs didnt exist in Jacks era and if they did he would dominate those as well. Winning reduced field events is easier for the elite to win than full field events. the data shows and backs  this up. everything you cite tiger did jack did and then some so go ahead and think how you wish majors matter. Thats why tiger was obsessed with them, if they matter most to him, what does that tell you?

13

#254 lowheel

lowheel

    LOWHEEL

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 193008
  • Joined: 07/18/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 1595

Posted 07 October 2017 - 02:28 PM

View PostShilgy, on 07 October 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

Sometimes instead of majors majors majors I keep hearing Marcia Marcia Marcia :)

It's the usual argument guys. Tiger vs Jack majors are (conveniently) ALL that matters. Any other comparison there starts to be a ton or rationalization to get the list where they want.  
  Geez, we even start to talk about Phil having more top 10's in majors than Tiger. Hope in the world is that relevant? Does anyone but Low think that makes their stats comparable in any way?
  Year after year a decade after decade, the leading on tour has been a relatively static number. Equipment changes, players get stronger, there after more players bunched together than on the past, but the leader has been about the same high 68's low 69's EXCEPT a decade and a half of Tiger.
  Funny how adamant some are that Jack played the best golf because of four events. Nocht pointed out, and Jack has stated that he had a lot fewer players to contend with. Does anyone think Emmitt Smith was the best running back in history? Yards gained is THE start isn't it? I'll take Brown, Sanders or Bo many day. Others as well.
  But it's time to close this discussion because evidently there is nothing to discuss. This is the list of greatest golfers in history. Period. PS it's amazing how many of them played long long ago. I wonder why?

https://en.m.wikiped...winning_golfers

Shil, you do what you accuse me of doing. you keep citing 79-79-79 over and over as some benchmark that clearly shows tiger is better. i have made my argument to you over and over and your argument is always, Jacks era was weak, he had less guys to beat etc... I then ask you who was tiger worried about during his era? and always its crickets because in reality we both know there were no more than 3-4 guys at a time who could hang with him when they were on. How is any different in jacks day? I made the argument there were more guys who were capable of winning multiple majors in Jacks day because the data shows that. the data also shows very few multiple major winners during tigers run. Neither of these facts detracts from Jacks or Tigers accomplishments. You always want to argue depth of field as the reason you put Tiger above Jack. I dont see it the differences, if anything alot more wallflowers today who dont know how to win or close.The last 5 years have shown the new direction the gameis taking. College golf is so competitive now that players are readily coming on tour at 20-21-22 ready to go and compete at the highest level and know how to win and arent affraid to win. ill gladly credit tigers run in influencing these guys to come out of the gates flying. i have not and never put down Tigers career or accomplishements, i merely believe that the #s and results favor Jack regardless of whos more "talented" or "flashy" because he did it. Tiger coulda, mighta, shoulda but didnt in the end. its a cruel game but he himself has said he didnt reach his goal to be the best but hes happy with what he has accomplished.
Also, in closing lets not rehash pre and post world war 2 stats to underscore your belief on wins. i know you dont value hogan or sneads or nelsons records but in the end any way you slice it they were dominant in their times. jacks era and prime carried into the 80s, lets not pretend it was 50 years ago. Also, bringing team sports into this discussion shows just how weak your arguments are. Stick to individual sports.Use tennis as a reference. Tell me whos the best there?

Edited by lowheel, 07 October 2017 - 02:36 PM.


14

#255 nochct1

nochct1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,192 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 57177
  • Joined: 06/03/2008
  • Ebay ID:dlcloser
GolfWRX Likes : 1833

Posted 07 October 2017 - 04:10 PM

View Postlowheel, on 07 October 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

View Postnochct1, on 07 October 2017 - 08:37 AM, said:

View Postlowheel, on 06 October 2017 - 07:26 PM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 06 October 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

View PostTim Schoch, on 05 October 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

Some of you must be too young and have missed Tiger's magic over his game, the field, and the golf ball.  I grew up with Arnie and Jack. When Tiger hit and kept hitting, the world was in awe. His legacy is much more than wins. He literally intimidated the game.  

No he didnt win more majors. But the experience of witnessing his power may never come again, no matter what the stats are.

I figure he wont be back. He has proved himself in his prime, so why would he come back?  Money?  Maybe. To win more majors?  Not sure he has it anymore—we don't know, but probably not.


this is the point being missed..... 2000 us open is all one needs to see to know that tiger played a level of golf Jack never saw.....  he didnt break jacks record..but put those two in their primes in a vaccum , and let them play for a year... tiger wins more...  just does..  so boils down to whether you prefer long term stats that arent comparabe because of eras or head to head real ability
Wonderful article below gives a first hand account of that week.  


http://amp.timeinc.n...open?source=dam

Laughable and not even close to reality. Your feelings dont matter. Bring some tangible arguments to the table. Stop diminishing one to elevate the other. Tiger never reached jacks height in majors period, not debatable and no winning a few by a bunch doesnt really mean anything in the grand scheme of totals. he never re reached the 2000 us open heights. it was a once in lifetime performance at one event. 10 years later at the same venue, same tournament Gregory Havret dusted him on sunday while tiger crumbled. 10 years after 72 at pebble nicklaus had to have another generational player Watson take an open away from him at age 42. thats Jack in a nutshell. Explain to me tigers record  in majors in his 30s versus jacks record in his 30s if tiger was so far superior.ill eagerly await your argument putting tiger ahead of jack and how tiger would win more when he never has?

Why are you so obsessed w Majors? Do you really think Jack's first British Open is some amazing win over the best field in golf? The British Open for many years was similar to the Australian Open. A handful of US players but mostly overseas players. It became a major because Palmer decided it should be one.

If a major is supposed to be a gathering of the worlds best players then early British Opens fall well short.

Today we have Majors, WGC and a handful of other tournaments that bring the best players in the world together. Tiger didn't just win 14 Majors / 79 tournaments. He won against the best fields in golf on a regular basis.

And stop with the stupid lob Wedge / equipment argument. Tiger set records at all levels with all types of equipment. If anything advances in equipment hurt him more than it helped him.

So i guess tigers british opens dont mean anything either right? you diminish Jacks era to elevate Tiger. WGCs didnt exist in Jacks era and if they did he would dominate those as well. Winning reduced field events is easier for the elite to win than full field events. the data shows and backs  this up. everything you cite tiger did jack did and then some so go ahead and think how you wish majors matter. Thats why tiger was obsessed with them, if they matter most to him, what does that tell you?

Haha. This is great. Tigers British Opens are very good wins because they were against the best players in the world. It's well known that the British Open didn't always have a great field. Just take a look at the fields in the 50s, 60s and early 70s

As for field size. Do you believe it's easier to win The Masters than The Phoenix Open? The Masters is a small field therefore it should be easier to win. Or does that argument not work because it's a tournament that the media decided is more important than all of the others?

But let's forget about Majors. Do you really believe that The John Deere or St Jude is harder to win than any of the WGC Championships??? Please let all of us know why those tournaments are harder to win? And if WGC are so easy to win then why dont we see more multiple winners? They are smaller fields with the top players and those guys rarely skip a WGC. Shouldn't we see more multiple winners in these easy events???



15

#256 nochct1

nochct1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,192 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 57177
  • Joined: 06/03/2008
  • Ebay ID:dlcloser
GolfWRX Likes : 1833

Posted 07 October 2017 - 04:21 PM

View Postlowheel, on 07 October 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

View PostShilgy, on 07 October 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

Sometimes instead of majors majors majors I keep hearing Marcia Marcia Marcia :)

It's the usual argument guys. Tiger vs Jack majors are (conveniently) ALL that matters. Any other comparison there starts to be a ton or rationalization to get the list where they want.  
  Geez, we even start to talk about Phil having more top 10's in majors than Tiger. Hope in the world is that relevant? Does anyone but Low think that makes their stats comparable in any way?
  Year after year a decade after decade, the leading on tour has been a relatively static number. Equipment changes, players get stronger, there after more players bunched together than on the past, but the leader has been about the same high 68's low 69's EXCEPT a decade and a half of Tiger.
  Funny how adamant some are that Jack played the best golf because of four events. Nocht pointed out, and Jack has stated that he had a lot fewer players to contend with. Does anyone think Emmitt Smith was the best running back in history? Yards gained is THE start isn't it? I'll take Brown, Sanders or Bo many day. Others as well.
  But it's time to close this discussion because evidently there is nothing to discuss. This is the list of greatest golfers in history. Period. PS it's amazing how many of them played long long ago. I wonder why?

https://en.m.wikiped...winning_golfers

Shil, you do what you accuse me of doing. you keep citing 79-79-79 over and over as some benchmark that clearly shows tiger is better. i have made my argument to you over and over and your argument is always, Jacks era was weak, he had less guys to beat etc... I then ask you who was tiger worried about during his era? and always its crickets because in reality we both know there were no more than 3-4 guys at a time who could hang with him when they were on. How is any different in jacks day? I made the argument there were more guys who were capable of winning multiple majors in Jacks day because the data shows that. the data also shows very few multiple major winners during tigers run. Neither of these facts detracts from Jacks or Tigers accomplishments. You always want to argue depth of field as the reason you put Tiger above Jack. I dont see it the differences, if anything alot more wallflowers today who dont know how to win or close.The last 5 years have shown the new direction the gameis taking. College golf is so competitive now that players are readily coming on tour at 20-21-22 ready to go and compete at the highest level and know how to win and arent affraid to win. ill gladly credit tigers run in influencing these guys to come out of the gates flying. i have not and never put down Tigers career or accomplishements, i merely believe that the #s and results favor Jack regardless of whos more "talented" or "flashy" because he did it. Tiger coulda, mighta, shoulda but didnt in the end. its a cruel game but he himself has said he didnt reach his goal to be the best but hes happy with what he has accomplished.
Also, in closing lets not rehash pre and post world war 2 stats to underscore your belief on wins. i know you dont value hogan or sneads or nelsons records but in the end any way you slice it they were dominant in their times. jacks era and prime carried into the 80s, lets not pretend it was 50 years ago. Also, bringing team sports into this discussion shows just how weak your arguments are. Stick to individual sports.Use tennis as a reference. Tell me whos the best there?

Are you one of those people that thinks that Jack was playing every major against Seve, Trevino, Palmer, Watson etc while everyone was in their prime?  

Palmer stopped winning majors in the early 60s. Watson didn't win Majors until the 70s. Seve had a good run in the early 80s.

The "multiple guys who won multiple majors" is stupid. You're looking back and not putting anything into context.

When you look at the multiple major winners in Tigers era do you include Faldo, McIlroy, Speith? Remembe, when Tiger won his first Faldo was the defending masters champ. And Rory has 4 and will probably end his career with more than that. Same w Jordan.

16

#257 bladehunter

bladehunter

    Cubs win ! Cubs win!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,754 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 12070

Posted 07 October 2017 - 04:57 PM

Still tiger.  I've got eyes.  And I can see the command he had over a golf ball.  Jack did too. But not to the same degree. I don't need to argue it anymore. I know who the GOAT is.  And deep down jack does too.
17 M2 V2 8  tour head  Aldila Tour Blue 85 TX  (Tour only Rogue Graphics)
17 M1 14.5   tour head Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
17 M2 17.5   tour head Aerotech 70 F6 Prototype
Vega VDC-01 Raw Handground 3-pw Modus 130X
Vega VW-02 Raw  56 60 Modus 130S
009 GSS 1.5  , Beached, tungsten sole weights
Bridgestone B330S

17

#258 lowheel

lowheel

    LOWHEEL

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 193008
  • Joined: 07/18/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 1595

Posted 07 October 2017 - 09:24 PM

View Postnochct1, on 07 October 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

View Postlowheel, on 07 October 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

View PostShilgy, on 07 October 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

Sometimes instead of majors majors majors I keep hearing Marcia Marcia Marcia :)

It's the usual argument guys. Tiger vs Jack majors are (conveniently) ALL that matters. Any other comparison there starts to be a ton or rationalization to get the list where they want.  
  Geez, we even start to talk about Phil having more top 10's in majors than Tiger. Hope in the world is that relevant? Does anyone but Low think that makes their stats comparable in any way?
  Year after year a decade after decade, the leading on tour has been a relatively static number. Equipment changes, players get stronger, there after more players bunched together than on the past, but the leader has been about the same high 68's low 69's EXCEPT a decade and a half of Tiger.
  Funny how adamant some are that Jack played the best golf because of four events. Nocht pointed out, and Jack has stated that he had a lot fewer players to contend with. Does anyone think Emmitt Smith was the best running back in history? Yards gained is THE start isn't it? I'll take Brown, Sanders or Bo many day. Others as well.
  But it's time to close this discussion because evidently there is nothing to discuss. This is the list of greatest golfers in history. Period. PS it's amazing how many of them played long long ago. I wonder why?

https://en.m.wikiped...winning_golfers

Shil, you do what you accuse me of doing. you keep citing 79-79-79 over and over as some benchmark that clearly shows tiger is better. i have made my argument to you over and over and your argument is always, Jacks era was weak, he had less guys to beat etc... I then ask you who was tiger worried about during his era? and always its crickets because in reality we both know there were no more than 3-4 guys at a time who could hang with him when they were on. How is any different in jacks day? I made the argument there were more guys who were capable of winning multiple majors in Jacks day because the data shows that. the data also shows very few multiple major winners during tigers run. Neither of these facts detracts from Jacks or Tigers accomplishments. You always want to argue depth of field as the reason you put Tiger above Jack. I dont see it the differences, if anything alot more wallflowers today who dont know how to win or close.The last 5 years have shown the new direction the gameis taking. College golf is so competitive now that players are readily coming on tour at 20-21-22 ready to go and compete at the highest level and know how to win and arent affraid to win. ill gladly credit tigers run in influencing these guys to come out of the gates flying. i have not and never put down Tigers career or accomplishements, i merely believe that the #s and results favor Jack regardless of whos more "talented" or "flashy" because he did it. Tiger coulda, mighta, shoulda but didnt in the end. its a cruel game but he himself has said he didnt reach his goal to be the best but hes happy with what he has accomplished.
Also, in closing lets not rehash pre and post world war 2 stats to underscore your belief on wins. i know you dont value hogan or sneads or nelsons records but in the end any way you slice it they were dominant in their times. jacks era and prime carried into the 80s, lets not pretend it was 50 years ago. Also, bringing team sports into this discussion shows just how weak your arguments are. Stick to individual sports.Use tennis as a reference. Tell me whos the best there?

Are you one of those people that thinks that Jack was playing every major against Seve, Trevino, Palmer, Watson etc while everyone was in their prime?  

Palmer stopped winning majors in the early 60s. Watson didn't win Majors until the 70s. Seve had a good run in the early 80s.

The "multiple guys who won multiple majors" is stupid. You're looking back and not putting anything into context.

When you look at the multiple major winners in Tigers era do you include Faldo, McIlroy, Speith? Remembe, when Tiger won his first Faldo was the defending masters champ. And Rory has 4 and will probably end his career with more than that. Same w Jordan.

Yeah, I did no such thing. watson straight up stole 3 majors from Jack because thats what you had to do to beat jack then play out of your mind. Trevino did it a few times as well.he also came from behind to win multiple majors, tiger has never done it once. its all good youre one of those people who thinks tiger beat the best ever during the best era. that never happened. He beat whoever was in front of him just like Jack did but jack did it more and and for longer. Sorry, thems the facts

18

#259 lowheel

lowheel

    LOWHEEL

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 193008
  • Joined: 07/18/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 1595

Posted 07 October 2017 - 09:38 PM

View Postbladehunter, on 07 October 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

Still tiger.  I've got eyes.  And I can see the command he had over a golf ball.  Jack did too. But not to the same degree. I don't need to argue it anymore. I know who the GOAT is.  And deep down jack does too.

then by your definition Hogan is the best ever because no one had command of the ball better than him? Butch Harmon saw both and said Hogan hit it better than tiger. So what? i still put tiger over hogan and so does 99% of the golf world.

I enjoyed chatting with you but your whole argument is summed up in your first sentence "i have eyes". no objectivity, no facts just feels.Its hard to accept i know but its the truth.
If you really believe Jack thinks that, youve never met the man. hes humble and was rooting for tiger to beat his record however its HIS record not the other way around.Tiger came on tour and said his only goal was to beat jack major record not his total wins or sneads total wins. no amount of revisionist history will change that. Hes too far behind to make this an argument. if he finished 1 or even 2 short sure lets talk but 4? thats a HOF careers worth. i was never trying to convince you or anyone but denigrating Jack to elevate tiger is a losing proposition.i dont diminish tiger to elevate jack bottom line.What Jack did with that equipment and ball for so long is worthy of admiration. The margin for error back then was razor thin and to have not only all those major wins but those insane top 5 finishes over 25 years is too much to overcome for tiger. If he had such command as you say then in the majors he would have come from behind at least once, he would have more high finishes than he does but he doesnt. Youre welcome to believe what you want but you cant dispute the #s. you can compare both from age 20-30 and say theyre neck and neck, but from ages 30-42 its not close Jack pulls away and never looks back. you value peak over prime. jack did it longer and better in golfs ultimate tests. Nobody was ever close to jacks finishes in majors yet Phil has more top 10s than tiger in the same time frame. Heck Tom Watson has 10 more than him. JACK HAS 30 MORE THAN THE NEXT BEST GUY SNEAD!!! Think about that for a second!!! but fist pumps and red shirts and club twirls is "better" because of feels. The funny part is I love me some tiger but even i am rational enough to see things objectively in the face of irrefutable evidence and #s

Edited by lowheel, 07 October 2017 - 09:50 PM.


19

#260 hogans71

hogans71

    Ain't no change in the weather, ain't no changes in me

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,684 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 45116
  • Joined: 01/05/2008
  • Location:Chicago (Lincoln Park)
GolfWRX Likes : 3908

Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:02 PM

I see yet ANOTHER tiger thread has devolved into JN vs TW... with the usual suspects running to his defense. Again.

I sadly have not missed wrx...


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#261 bladehunter

bladehunter

    Cubs win ! Cubs win!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,754 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 12070

Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:09 PM

View Postlowheel, on 07 October 2017 - 09:38 PM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 07 October 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

Still tiger.  I've got eyes.  And I can see the command he had over a golf ball.  Jack did too. But not to the same degree. I don't need to argue it anymore. I know who the GOAT is.  And deep down jack does too.

then by your definition Hogan is the best ever because no one had command of the ball better than him? Butch Harmon saw both and said Hogan hit it better than tiger. So what? i still put tiger over hogan and so does 99% of the golf world.

I enjoyed chatting with you but your whole argument is summed up in your first sentence "i have eyes". no objectivity, no facts just feels.Its hard to accept i know but its the truth.
If you really believe Jack thinks that, youve never met the man. hes humble and was rooting for tiger to beat his record however its HIS record not the other way around.Tiger came on tour and said his only goal was to beat jack major record not his total wins or sneads total wins. no amount of revisionist history will change that. Hes too far behind to make this an argument. if he finished 1 or even 2 short sure lets talk but 4? thats a HOF careers worth. i was never trying to convince you or anyone but denigrating Jack to elevate tiger is a losing proposition.i dont diminish tiger to elevate jack bottom line.What Jack did with that equipment and ball for so long is worthy of admiration. The margin for error back then was razor thin and to have not only all those major wins but those insane top 5 finishes over 25 years is too much to overcome for tiger. If he had such command as you say then in the majors he would have come from behind at least once, he would have more high finishes than he does but he doesnt. Youre welcome to believe what you want but you cant dispute the #s. you can compare both from age 20-30 and say theyre neck and neck, but from ages 30-42 its not close Jack pulls away and never looks back. you value peak over prime. jack did it longer and better in golfs ultimate tests. Nobody was ever close to jacks finishes in majors yet Phil has more top 10s than tiger in the same time frame. Heck Tom Watson has 10 more than him. JACK HAS 30 MORE THAN THE NEXT BEST GUY SNEAD!!! Think about that for a second!!! but fist pumps and red shirts and club twirls is "better" because of feels. The funny part is I love me some tiger but even i am rational enough to see things objectively in the face of irrefutable evidence and #s

It's cool. Im not trying to change your mind.  Just letting you know my mind won't be changed. That's all.   And I agree on hogan vs tiger too. Obviously. Lol.    But my thoughts on a flat swing and it's many faults is a whole different animal.   And we don't want to wake that animal up this late in the evening.
17 M2 V2 8  tour head  Aldila Tour Blue 85 TX  (Tour only Rogue Graphics)
17 M1 14.5   tour head Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
17 M2 17.5   tour head Aerotech 70 F6 Prototype
Vega VDC-01 Raw Handground 3-pw Modus 130X
Vega VW-02 Raw  56 60 Modus 130S
009 GSS 1.5  , Beached, tungsten sole weights
Bridgestone B330S

21

#262 Jacked_Loft

Jacked_Loft

    Giant Steps Ahead

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 449174
  • Joined: 12/17/2016
  • Location:Gone fishin'
  • Handicap:Nix
GolfWRX Likes : 205

Posted 08 October 2017 - 04:29 AM

View Posthogans71, on 07 October 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

I see yet ANOTHER tiger thread has devolved into JN vs TW... with the usual suspects running to his defense. Again.

I sadly have not missed wrx...

Yeh, the question should now be: "Does wrx need threads like these, or do threads like these need wrx?"
WIMB:

M2 10.5° Kuro Kage 60 S
M1 3 & 5 FW Kuro Kage 70 S
P790 3 Iron Nippon 950 S
P770 4-PW & AW Nippon 950 S
Cally Sure Out 58° Anti PitchYip
TP Platinum Putter SS GTR 2.0
Sun Mountain Carry Bag & Titleist Competition

22

#263 Frostfield

Frostfield

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 227321
  • Joined: 02/06/2013
  • Location:Robinson, TX
GolfWRX Likes : 372

Posted 08 October 2017 - 06:48 AM

Jack has the best record.  Indisputable.
Tiger played the game at the highest level ever played.  Indisputable.

23

#264 Miuralovechild

Miuralovechild

    Miuralovechild

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 447828
  • Joined: 12/01/2016
  • Location:Vegas
  • Handicap:0
  • Ebay ID:Golfstarclient
GolfWRX Likes : 30

Posted 09 October 2017 - 10:37 PM

I think if he found a good woman that he wouldn’t cheat on his life would be more fulfilling. At some point he’ll want to be in a meaningful relationship. If he can get right emotionally, mentally, and spiritually his physical problems will heal to the point that he’ll be able to complete again. Many other athletes have come back from worse. If he got some balance in his life and had some faith in a higher being, I know he could make it back.  He has  got at least 10 years left to win 5 majors.  But honestly I suspect that he won’t figure it out until it’s too late.

24

#265 lowheel

lowheel

    LOWHEEL

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 193008
  • Joined: 07/18/2012
GolfWRX Likes : 1595

Posted 09 October 2017 - 11:58 PM

View PostFrostfield, on 08 October 2017 - 06:48 AM, said:

Jack has the best record.  Indisputable.FACT
Tiger played the game at the highest level ever played.  Indisputable. OPINION


25

#266 soregongolfer

soregongolfer

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 97841
  • Joined: 11/03/2009
  • Location:Roseburg, OR
GolfWRX Likes : 539

Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:25 AM

View PostMiuralovechild, on 09 October 2017 - 10:37 PM, said:

I think if he found a good woman that he wouldn’t cheat on his life would be more fulfilling. At some point he’ll want to be in a meaningful relationship. If he can get right emotionally, mentally, and spiritually his physical problems will heal to the point that he’ll be able to complete again. Many other athletes have come back from worse. If he got some balance in his life and had some faith in a higher being, I know he could make it back.  He has  got at least 10 years left to win 5 majors.  But honestly I suspect that he won’t figure it out until it’s too late.

He knows Jack Nicklaus on a personal level.  No need for faith when you know the guy.

26

#267 youraway2

youraway2

    Just Old Sticks

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,057 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 25945
  • Joined: 02/24/2007
  • Location:Niceville Florida
  • Handicap:7
  • Ebay ID:youraway
GolfWRX Likes : 247

Posted 10 October 2017 - 07:57 PM

View Postbscinstnct, on 05 October 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

Tiger has more PGA Tour wins than Jack. Long or short career, he has more wins.

And does anyone really think Jack would win 18 majors now? With his wedge game?

http://bleacherrepor...-by-lee-trevino

"Trevino spills much ink in praise of Jack Nicklaus, although at one point he calls him a flat out “poor” wedge and sand player."  

Also, interesting point by Trevino on depth>>>

"There was only one comment I read that directly addressed the depth of field issue.  He was discussing Tom Watson.   Writing in 1981, Trevino felt that Watson still had the potential to be as great as Nicklaus, but  “there’s more topflight competition for Tom.  Today you may be playing great and some player who’s never won a tournament can come out of the pack and beat you” (page 181 Random House edition).

So, Trevino felt that in little over a decade between the mid 60's and the early 80's, depth of field had increased substantially, enough to impact Watson’s relative career totals."

Good information; I've believed for a long time that if Payne had lived, Tiger would have less majors.

Edited by youraway2, 10 October 2017 - 07:57 PM.


27

#268 Shilgy

Shilgy

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,215 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 235237
  • Joined: 03/07/2013
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Handicap:4.0
GolfWRX Likes : 4985

Posted 10 October 2017 - 10:46 PM

View Postyouraway2, on 10 October 2017 - 07:57 PM, said:

View Postbscinstnct, on 05 October 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

Tiger has more PGA Tour wins than Jack. Long or short career, he has more wins.

And does anyone really think Jack would win 18 majors now? With his wedge game?

http://bleacherrepor...-by-lee-trevino

"Trevino spills much ink in praise of Jack Nicklaus, although at one point he calls him a flat out “poor” wedge and sand player."  

Also, interesting point by Trevino on depth>>>

"There was only one comment I read that directly addressed the depth of field issue.  He was discussing Tom Watson.   Writing in 1981, Trevino felt that Watson still had the potential to be as great as Nicklaus, but  “there’s more topflight competition for Tom.  Today you may be playing great and some player who’s never won a tournament can come out of the pack and beat you” (page 181 Random House edition).

So, Trevino felt that in little over a decade between the mid 60's and the early 80's, depth of field had increased substantially, enough to impact Watson’s relative career totals."

Good information; I've believed for a long time that if Payne had lived, Tiger would have less majors.
Possibly. Flip side is that Payne was already 42. Rip.
TM M1 8.5* Graphite Design BB6s
TM M1 3w 14*  Graphite Design BB7s
Srixon U65 18° Atmos Red 7s
Adams A12 UST Silver S 21°
Srixon Z765 5-AW Nippon Pro Modus3 125S
Cleveland  RTX CB 54* 58* Nippon 125 wedge
Toulon Garage Rochester/ Toulon Rochester

To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened .  :)

28

#269 new2g0lf

new2g0lf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,062 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 114437
  • Joined: 09/06/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 1268

Posted 14 October 2017 - 09:45 AM

View Postlowheel, on 07 October 2017 - 01:52 AM, said:

View PostShilgy, on 06 October 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

Oh for crying out loud. Sometimes your smugness in using majors as the only metric is laughable as well. It's like calling Horry better than Jordan. Funny how the major metric gets lost when someone wants to call a Floyd or Els greater than a Casper.
  Remember when Jack won his 79th event to match Tiger?  Oops.

Shil, are you comparing team sports to individual sports? My smugness is in response to team tiger pr on here spouting their nonsense. Im sure Jack is crying himself to sleep that he didnt reach Snead or or tigers # of wins... he has the ones that matter on top of the results in those events that matter. How do you dispute this? oh i know tell me how it was easier for jack to finish 2nd and 3rd back then because of lack of depth. Rinse and repeat. Doesnt explain how he maintained his greatness for longer than tiger though now does it? have at it

Also tiger has like 5-6 wins more than Jack, Billy Casper has 30 more wins than Floyd and floyd only has 1 more major not really comparable in my mind. Ernies euro tour record makes it a better discussion with casper but again he has more than 2.5 times his wins on tour and 1 more major.If Ernie finished with 5-6 majors i easily put him above caper but  you chose bad examples. those guys are in trevinos tier. I personally have trevino above casper, watson above casper, Also Phil above Casper. i have alot of respect for Casper but he should have more majors especially since 1 was gifted to him by arnie
watson has 12 less wins than Casper has but almost 3 times the majors whos better? ;)
Player has half the wins Casper has but 3 times the majors whos better? ;)

To be fair the only reason Majors are used as the measuring stick is because that's the stat Tiger publicly targeted.  If Jack was as dominant as his fans would like to believe he'd have won more tournaments than Snead and Tiger.  Jack also competed in twice as many major tournaments than Tiger did, 154 - 76.  In terms of winning percentages, Tiger is the clear winner.

29

#270 Shilgy

Shilgy

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,215 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 235237
  • Joined: 03/07/2013
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Handicap:4.0
GolfWRX Likes : 4985

Posted 14 October 2017 - 10:16 AM

View Postnew2g0lf, on 14 October 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

View Postlowheel, on 07 October 2017 - 01:52 AM, said:

View PostShilgy, on 06 October 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

Oh for crying out loud. Sometimes your smugness in using majors as the only metric is laughable as well. It's like calling Horry better than Jordan. Funny how the major metric gets lost when someone wants to call a Floyd or Els greater than a Casper.
  Remember when Jack won his 79th event to match Tiger?  Oops.

Shil, are you comparing team sports to individual sports? My smugness is in response to team tiger pr on here spouting their nonsense. Im sure Jack is crying himself to sleep that he didnt reach Snead or or tigers # of wins... he has the ones that matter on top of the results in those events that matter. How do you dispute this? oh i know tell me how it was easier for jack to finish 2nd and 3rd back then because of lack of depth. Rinse and repeat. Doesnt explain how he maintained his greatness for longer than tiger though now does it? have at it

Also tiger has like 5-6 wins more than Jack, Billy Casper has 30 more wins than Floyd and floyd only has 1 more major not really comparable in my mind. Ernies euro tour record makes it a better discussion with casper but again he has more than 2.5 times his wins on tour and 1 more major.If Ernie finished with 5-6 majors i easily put him above caper but  you chose bad examples. those guys are in trevinos tier. I personally have trevino above casper, watson above casper, Also Phil above Casper. i have alot of respect for Casper but he should have more majors especially since 1 was gifted to him by arnie
watson has 12 less wins than Casper has but almost 3 times the majors whos better? ;)
Player has half the wins Casper has but 3 times the majors whos better? ;)

To be fair the only reason Majors are used as the measuring stick is because that's the stat Tiger publicly targeted.  If Jack was as dominant as his fans would like to believe he'd have won more tournaments than Snead and Tiger.  Jack also competed in twice as many major tournaments than Tiger did, 154 - 76.  In terms of winning percentages, Tiger is the clear winner.
To be fair then it is probably closer to 100-76 then as Jack was, in spite of his protests he would never do so when in his younger days, largely a ceremonial golfer that last years.  Although if you are going to crow that Jack at 58 finished higher that Tiger in the Masters maybe the numbers should stay where you had them.  :)

TM M1 8.5* Graphite Design BB6s
TM M1 3w 14*  Graphite Design BB7s
Srixon U65 18° Atmos Red 7s
Adams A12 UST Silver S 21°
Srixon Z765 5-AW Nippon Pro Modus3 125S
Cleveland  RTX CB 54* 58* Nippon 125 wedge
Toulon Garage Rochester/ Toulon Rochester

To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened .  :)

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors