or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest - Page 176

Poll Results: Tiger or Jack: Who's the best?

 
  • 69% (1628)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (705)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2333 Total Votes  
post #3151 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwdial View Post

It's kind of funny, but a lot of LSU grads only went there for a semester or so.  Some weird rule in the state of Louisiana - go figure - allowed them to go to other state universities, and then transfer in for a semester and be an LSU grad.  Used to piss the folks that went to LSU for four or five (or six or seven) that folks could do that.  They may have changed it... I was told that nearly two decades ago... but they said there were tons of LSU grads who couldn't tell you where a damn thing on campus was because they'd only attended four classes there.

 

As fun as that may all be, it's...

 

z8_offtopic.gif

 

(Still wish that guy looked happier, it's not THAT big a deal...).

post #3152 of 4468

Tiger has been masterly today.  It has been a day for keeping the driver in the bag so his difficulties with that club weren't tested.  The rest of his game was, not too surprisingly, superb.

post #3153 of 4468

 

Woods has now played in 66 major championships. Here is his record compared to Nicklaus’s first 66.

 

Tiger:

1st - 14

2nd - 6

3rd - 4

4-10 - 12

 

Jack:

1st - 14

2nd - 10

3rd - 8

4-10 - 11

 

Jack #66 - T11  (1976 U.S. Open) Woods #66 -  T11  (2012 PGA Championship)

post #3154 of 4468

"I don't think Jack had tougher competition. I think that's an old-timer speaking about "the way things used to be" a little bit."

 

Could be.  But the fact that one has seen so many others in a real time situation allows one to make a better comparison. It's not that Jack didn't have as much competition, it's just that he was so much better.  Kinda like Woods.  And if one is fortunate to live long enough they too can make a better comparison.
 

post #3155 of 4468

I think golf is one sport where progress has not been substantial in terms of pro-level ability, so this is a difficult question. When it comes to most other sports, any athlete of 40 (let's say Jack's prime was between 1965-1975) years ago wouldn;t stand a chance today. The average lineman on the 70's Pittsburgh Steelers was about 260. Today that's a tight end, except those Steelers didn;t run 4.6 40s. Do you think Wilt Chamberlain would've averaged 30 rebounds a game against today's teams? Not a chance. The four minute mile is now a benchmark for top-ranked HIGH SCHOOL track stars. If Tiger has trouble hitting driver straight now, what would he do with a wood circa 1965, or those old school iron designs? Jack still managed to maintain a scoring average around 68-69 with those inferior tools.

post #3156 of 4468

The 4 min mile has been a benchmark for HS milers since the mid60s ( I.e. when Jack was playing.) when they were running on much slower tracks.  Don't get confused by the lull in the late 80s or early 90s.  The top guys in the 60s and 70s were  sub 4:10 which if you adjust for the track is about the same as today. Ryun's 3:55 is as good as any HS mile ever run.  I think your delusional if you think golfers are not improving like other sports. Now pure atheleticism is not as important in golf as it is in other sports (i.e why golfers can play at the highest level at 40 while in most other sports the greats all retire). As far as Jacks inferior equipment, all his competition played with the same stuff. It doesn't matter. And sure Jack had a good scoring average that would be competive on the PGA tour today. Except of course Jack was playing easier courses so it is sort of like looking at your local club champion who is averaging 69s on a 6200 yard course and wondering why he isn't on the PGA tour.  And I have no doubt Tiger would do fine with old school equipment. Look at the irons he plays or the driver he used to win his first couple masters.  Heck his driving was  a heck of a lot better when he was swinging that old 43" steel shafted driver.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post

I think golf is one sport where progress has not been substantial in terms of pro-level ability, so this is a difficult question. When it comes to most other sports, any athlete of 40 (let's say Jack's prime was between 1965-1975) years ago wouldn;t stand a chance today. The average lineman on the 70's Pittsburgh Steelers was about 260. Today that's a tight end, except those Steelers didn;t run 4.6 40s. Do you think Wilt Chamberlain would've averaged 30 rebounds a game against today's teams? Not a chance. The four minute mile is now a benchmark for top-ranked HIGH SCHOOL track stars. If Tiger has trouble hitting driver straight now, what would he do with a wood circa 1965, or those old school iron designs? Jack still managed to maintain a scoring average around 68-69 with those inferior tools.

post #3157 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by bwdial View Post

In all fairness, Hogan, Snead and Nelson also worked as club pros.  It was a bit more of a necessity for guys to actually make ends meet.

 

That "way" ended with Arnold Palmer. Jack never worked as a club pro, nor did virtually any of the guys you think of as his main competition. The depth of the PGA Tour was incredibly shallow through most of Jack's time.

 

The guys at the top may or may not have been better than currently or for the past 15 years, but the depth was unquestionably shallower.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwdial View Post

In all fairness, Hogan, Snead and Nelson also worked as club pros.  It was a bit more of a necessity for guys to actually make ends meet.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwdial View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

That "way" ended with Arnold Palmer. Jack never worked as a club pro, nor did virtually any of the guys you think of as his main competition. The depth of the PGA Tour was incredibly shallow through most of Jack's time.

 

The guys at the top may or may not have been better than currently or for the past 15 years, but the depth was unquestionably shallower.

 

It did, but mainly because Arnie was popular enough to make money with endorsements.  That opened the door for all of the guys to make a little money wearing Munsingwear and Amana hats.  I'll agree that the talent pool was shallower, but the guys were a lot hungrier.  

They played for a living.  

Jack never made more than about $320,000 in a year.  

Daniel Summerhays has made more than that already this year in nine tournaments... and he's 95th on the money list.

 

One big reason why there was less depth in Jack's era and before is the simple fact of most players having to earn a living outside of golf.  The money wasn't an incentive unless you were near the top on a weekly basis. Today, just making the cut will keep you sufficiently liquid to stay out on Tour.  Back when the guys who finished near the bottom on Sunday were only getting $100-$200, they couldn't stay out on Tour for an entire season unless they had some sort of independent funding source.   They couldn't afford to fly from site to site - they couldn't even afford gas money half the time.  Even when they could afford to play in 2 or 3 events in a row, most had to drive from one to the next,leaving immediately when the Sunday round is over to get to the next city.  That makes for an exhausting lifestyle.  They simply had to spend time at home recharging the batteries and earning enough to go back out for the occasional tournament.  The necessity of actually working a real job, even as a club pro, cut deeply into any practice time they might have had too.  

 

As to the original question in the poll, I'll state that I'm a Nicklaus fan from way back.  I still don't know if he or Tiger is the better overall player.  Both dominated their eras, but there are just too many differences to ever make a truly meaningful comparison.  I don't even know if either one of them is the best ever - Bobby Jones certainly comes to mind as a possible candidate too, despite the fact that he never turned pro.  Again, there was simply no incentive back then for him to do so, since he couldn't even come close as a pro golfer to what he could earn as an attorney.

post #3158 of 4468

Nicklaus is much better, didnt have the equipment Porn Star Woods has and the courses are in better shape..  Nicklaus, like mickelson, is more fun to watch than porn star woods

post #3159 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharris View Post

Nicklaus is much better, didnt have the equipment Porn Star Woods has and the courses are in better shape..  Nicklaus, like mickelson, is more fun to watch than porn star woods

 

So, did you join just to beat on Tiger?  That's all you've done since your first post.  If so, you aren't going to be around long.  He's paid the price for his iniquity, so give it a rest.

post #3160 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharris View Post

Nicklaus is much better, didnt have the equipment Porn Star Woods has and the courses are in better shape..  Nicklaus, like mickelson, is more fun to watch than porn star woods

     Tiger Woods has done more growing golf than any other 10 players combined. People who had never heard of golf before in countries that did not have golf courses wanted to watch Tiger Woods. Every touring pro who has cashed a check since 1997 should send Tiger a thank you card for the prize money they received because it is a lot bigger because of Tiger Woods. Say what you want about his personal life but he is 50 for 54 when leading after 54 holes and has won 73 tournaments at 37 years old. Because of his performance when it matters most and his impact on growing the game, Tiger is the greatest. 

post #3161 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharris View Post

Nicklaus is much better, didnt have the equipment Porn Star Woods has and the courses are in better shape..  Nicklaus, like mickelson, is more fun to watch than porn star woods

 

Do you EVER have anything POSITIVE to say about ANYTHING?

post #3162 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckAaron View Post

     Tiger Woods has done more growing golf than any other 10 players combined. People who had never heard of golf before in countries that did not have golf courses wanted to watch Tiger Woods. Every touring pro who has cashed a check since 1997 should send Tiger a thank you card for the prize money they received because it is a lot bigger because of Tiger Woods. Say what you want about his personal life but he is 50 for 54 when leading after 54 holes and has won 73 tournaments at 37 years old. Because of his performance when it matters most and his impact on growing the game, Tiger is the greatest. 


I would argue that Mr. Palmer has done more for the game than Tiger ever will. Palmer was the first man to make golf "cool". Palmer also made it a big deal that others noticed as he was Sports Illustrateds "Sportman of the year" in 1960. Arnie also saved the Champions (Sr PGA at the time) in 1980 and is the cofounder of the Golf Channel.

Tiger has picked up what Arnold started no doubt. Tiger made golf cool for this generation and carried the torch well. The purses are bigger because of Tiger as well but that's also the story for every sport. Some people have said the players of today owe Tiger a lot of gratitude. I say Tiger owes Mr Palmer more.
post #3163 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJK3122 View Post


I would argue that Mr. Palmer has done more for the game than Tiger ever will. Palmer was the first man to make golf "cool". Palmer also made it a big deal that others noticed as he was Sports Illustrateds "Sportman of the year" in 1960. Arnie also saved the Champions (Sr PGA at the time) in 1980 and is the cofounder of the Golf Channel.

Tiger has picked up what Arnold started no doubt. Tiger made golf cool for this generation and carried the torch well. The purses are bigger because of Tiger as well but that's also the story for every sport. Some people have said the players of today owe Tiger a lot of gratitude. I say Tiger owes Mr Palmer more.

    Arnold did a lot for golf for the middle class but Tiger's reach stretched across social class, race and ethnic boundaries on a global scale (which no doubt had to do with the state of modern communication). Tiger brought golf to inner cities and countries around the world that had never heard of golf. Arnold may have done that for a certain population but because of our residence in North America we tend to overestimate his effect on golf. Not to mention Palmer never dominated the way Tiger did. Arnold was as famous for how he looked as he was for golf.  

post #3164 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckAaron View Post

    Arnold did a lot for golf for the middle class but Tiger's reach stretched across social class, race and ethnic boundaries on a global scale (which no doubt had to do with the state of modern communication). Tiger brought golf to inner cities and countries around the world that had never heard of golf. Arnold may have done that for a certain population but because of our residence in North America we tend to overestimate his effect on golf. Not to mention Palmer never dominated the way Tiger did. Arnold was as famous for how he looked as he was for golf.  

Well no argument that tiger reached a bigger audience. With social media, bigger tv coverage and the always big push on endorsements, how couldn't he. Arnold has 62 tour wins that include 7 majors. To say he is known more for his looks is a little insulting.
It like saying in 40 years Tiger will be known for his temper tantrums, messy divorce and blaming his coaches for bad tournament results. I don't believe that to be the case.

I guess I never answered the original question, Jack or Tiger. IMO it's very hard to compare athletes of different generations. If you go off the "championships define greatness" then it Jack. If tiger breaks that record then you give it to him I guess.

I would argue that Jacks playing competitors were superior to Tigers. Tiger can hit shots that Jack probably never even thought about. Is that bc of superior technology in equipment and ball making? We will probably never know.

Give me Jack, for now.
post #3165 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJK3122 View Post


Well no argument that tiger reached a bigger audience. With social media, bigger tv coverage and the always big push on endorsements, how couldn't he. Arnold has 62 tour wins that include 7 majors. To say he is known more for his looks is a little insulting.
It like saying in 40 years Tiger will be known for his temper tantrums, messy divorce and blaming his coaches for bad tournament results. I don't believe that to be the case.

I guess I never answered the original question, Jack or Tiger. IMO it's very hard to compare athletes of different generations. If you go off the "championships define greatness" then it Jack. If tiger breaks that record then you give it to him I guess.

I would argue that Jacks playing competitors were superior to Tigers. Tiger can hit shots that Jack probably never even thought about. Is that bc of superior technology in equipment and ball making? We will probably never know.

Give me Jack, for now.

I never said Palmer was known more for his looks just that it was an important factor in his success. However I should also add that he wrote the book on interacting with fans. 

 

  I do not believe that Jack played against better competitors, it was just that there was a handful of players that were far superior to everyone else whereas nowadays half the field or more has a chance to win any event especially at the majors when the best of the best in the world all show up to play. In either case, like you said there is no way of knowing. 

post #3166 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckAaron View Post

I never said Palmer was known more for his looks just that it was an important factor in his success. However I should also add that he wrote the book on interacting with fans. 

 

  I do not believe that Jack played against better competitors, it was just that there was a handful of players that were far superior to everyone else whereas nowadays half the field or more has a chance to win any event especially at the majors when the best of the best in the world all show up to play. In either case, like you said there is no way of knowing. 

There are a lot more good players today, but Jack definitely played against better competitors. You have to remember that most of those guys were playing every day to just be able to eat the next week. There were no sponsors paying for their every whim (they can all thank Arnold for that) and they had to win to make decent money. There was no guaranteed 125 man Tour card cutoff, it was 60. About a third of every field was made up on Monday in qualifying and they all had to rely on local caddies who they didn't know. No courtesy cars, no fresh balls piled on the range; they had to bring their own shag bag full of beatup balls. Those guys would cut off your nuts to make a check. Today's guys are so spoiled it is ridiculous. Just making the cut is all most of them want to do.

post #3167 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckAaron View Post

I never said Palmer was known more for his looks just that it was an important factor in his success. However I should also add that he wrote the book on interacting with fans. 

  I do not believe that Jack played against better competitors, it was just that there was a handful of players that were far superior to everyone else whereas nowadays half the field or more has a chance to win any event especially at the majors when the best of the best in the world all show up to play. In either case, like you said there is no way of knowing. 



We obviously have some different opinions but I have enjoyed the debate.
post #3168 of 4468
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckAaron View Post

I never said Palmer was known more for his looks just that it was an important factor in his success. However I should also add that he wrote the book on interacting with fans. 

 

  I do not believe that Jack played against better competitors, it was just that there was a handful of players that were far superior to everyone else whereas nowadays half the field or more has a chance to win any event especially at the majors when the best of the best in the world all show up to play. In either case, like you said there is no way of knowing. 

There are a lot more good players today, but Jack definitely played against better competitors. You have to remember that most of those guys were playing every day to just be able to eat the next week. There were no sponsors paying for their every whim (they can all thank Arnold for that) and they had to win to make decent money. There was no guaranteed 125 man Tour card cutoff, it was 60. About a third of every field was made up on Monday in qualifying and they all had to rely on local caddies who they didn't know. No courtesy cars, no fresh balls piled on the range; they had to bring their own shag bag full of beatup balls. Those guys would cut off your nuts to make a check. Today's guys are so spoiled it is ridiculous. Just making the cut is all most of them want to do.

 

If I follow your logic, you're saying that back in Jack's day the golfers were better because the purses were smaller?  I don't think that logic makes sense. If you were a damn good golfer, but the best you could hope for from playing golf professionally was eking out a living, and could make more money by working a 9-5 job, you'd likely choose the latter.  That means Jack wasn't competing against all those damn good golfers who went that route.

 

With today's purses and the other spoils you mention, a damn good golfer is more likely to be out on tour. Plus, as you also pointed out, there are more guys with a tour card which means *more* competition, not less.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest