Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest - Page 165

'splains a lot .....

 

Only kiddin' there Prof. Brock, only kiddin' ....

 

p.s. I hope guys trading barbs on this thread realize that you're having an interesting and informative historical discussion - keep it up.  Don't let personal feelings get in the way, it's all good ....

 

\lecture

I thought the most interesting part, aside from Jack's stated goal of breaking Snead's record, was his arrogance (the reporter's term, not mine) in telling golf fans to go fly a kite if they thought he took too long over his shots. Not what you'd expect from St. Jack.

Maybe not, but otoh he's a candid sort of a guy and it does fit his personality imo.  He obviously felt strongly about it so I'm not surprised at what he said.

 

The reporter was wrong to use the word "arrogant" in that context.  Nothing arrogant about that, not in the least - just unusually candid or as we say these days, lacking in political correctness. 

 

Thanks for sharing that brocks - v. interesting stuff esp. to old fogies like me who remember the Golden Bear in days of old.  He was no Saint, certainly. 

 

[major drift: are there any golfing saints btw .... ?  Some would say Hogan but I gots my doubts.]

Hogan was like a chain-smoking Tiger. He shut everything out during a round, including the fans (there's a story that after a round, he asked his wife where she had been --- she had walked the whole round with him), and he hated the press. He was reportedly very loyal and generous to his friends, though.

Jack nickilus of course!
 

You mean Jack Nicholson.

I'm not taking a position on who was best but as to length there is no comparison. In their primes with the same equipment, it would take a driver and wedge for Tiger to reach Jack's best drive.

Legends abound, but Jack's own opinion of his longest drive ever in competition was that it occurred on the 15th hole at Augusta, when he was between a seven and eight iron to reach in two. Tiger reached with driver and nine iron twice during the 1995 Masters, when he was a skinny amateur. This was long before Tiger switched to the new technology.

In fact, Tiger was one of the last pros to switch. Phil famously said that Tiger was the only player good enough to overcome his "inferior equipment" in 2003.

This was long before Tiger switched to the new technology.

 

You mean Tiger wasn't using the new Nike ball or whatever he used at the Masters?

 

According to Jack the biggest influence on distance is the modern ball not the clubs.

 

I have to agree with him.

According to Jack it's the ball that has changed the game not the clubs.

 

http://www.nicklaus.com/design/pgachampion/interview-jack-nicklaus.php

It's not very clear to me what he's saying. He says at one point that the ball has changed the game, at another he doesn't want different rules for pros regarding either clubs or balls, and he also says this (emphasis added):

"And when I played, if I would play with an amateur at his club, and we both played from the back tees, I might out hit him 15 or 20 yards. It wasn't a big deal. You play with him today, the guys out hitting 100 yards. It's not even close to a contest. They are playing with the same equipment. Something's different. And whether it's the golf ball or the club or a combination; the only issue that I have always had with this thing is that the TOUR is a showcase of the game, and the TOUR should be the example of how the game should be played for the average golfer. And when the average golfer cannot relate to the game that the TOUR guy is playing, how can you say it's the same game."

The best I can make out is that he's saying, using the best equipment of each era, the pros get a much bigger distance differential over the amateurs today than they did when he was playing. Which seems to be saying that the real difference is how much better the pros are today.

But that can't be right, can it?

Lets put it this way.

 

If I used the modern ball and you used the old ball and all other things being equal the modern ball would go farther.

 

Why do you think the yardages have to be increased so the course is at least playable instead of a pitch and putt course.

 

Today I am watching the Wells Fargo  tournament and I believe it was Rory Mc Ilroy and his drive on one hole was 354 yards.

 

And then there were a few others that were close to that.

That drive of Jack's measured 340 with a wooden club and a marshmellow for a ball. His 7 or 8 iron probably had about the same loft as Tiger's 9. As Hank Haney says in his new book, Tiger was long but not as long as some of Haney's other students like Hank Kuene.

 

You know HH's book was "inaccurate", right?

 

So, what's any of that have to do with "Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest"? Jack used the equipment available to him, Tiger uses the equipment available to him, and so too did all of their peers.

 

The "equipment" argument favors Tiger by Jack's own admission.

 

 

Tiger's irons aren't nearly as strongly lofted as some intended for consumers.

Nice.

Totally off topic, but, I think Rory hit one 380 yesterday. Feherty was saying he had never seen someone making their second shot from that position before. Some of these guys are CRAZY long.

So, what's any of that have to do with "Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest"? Jack used the equipment available to him, Tiger uses the equipment available to him, and so too did all of their peers.

 

When you want to make comparisons on who was the greatest, you have to include equipment by default.

 

Do you think anyone could set a pole vault record now using a bamboo pole?

 

Here was the comment:

 

I'm not taking a position on who was best but as to length there is no comparison. In their primes with the same equipment, it would take a driver and wedge for Tiger to reach Jack's best drive.

 

354 yards in the old days was a solid par four.  No longer.  Championship courses from the old days are now obsolete.