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 182

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

 
  • 69% (1628)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (706)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2334 Total Votes  
post #3259 of 4471
Quote:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

Jack had to compete against the likes of Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Tom Wtson, Lee Trevino, Billy Casper and Raymond Floyd in their primes. Who is Tiger competing against? Phil Mickelson?

 

 

Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

Players who are better than those players.

 

No doubt in my mind that if those players played today, they'd win far, far fewer majors.

 

In Jack's day, the top players were quite a bit separated from even the 50th best player in the field. Today, it's a sliver that separates Tiger from the 100th best player in the field. Virtually EVERYONE (except 20 people in the PGA Championship) is capable of winning a major these days. The list was considerably shorter in Jack's day.

 

I totally disagree. Hell, the guys on the web.com tour have it better than the PGA Tour players did back in the sixties. Those guys were fighting for their livelihood every single week. There was no guarantee to get a card the next season, even if you won a tournament. You had to finish in the top 60 on the money list or have to deal with qualifying on Mondays. Players like Billy Casper and Ray Floyd were soooo much tougher than pampered guys like Sergio, who are very talented but also vey content. That Jack was trying to beat back the likes of Trevino, Watson and Player is a testament to his greatness.

post #3260 of 4471
Please tell me your being sarcastic.
post #3261 of 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

 

FIFY

post #3262 of 4471
Sorry sir. I'm typing on my phone and sometimes I mess up and it auto corrects.
post #3263 of 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

Sorry sir. I'm typing on my phone and sometimes I mess up and it auto corrects.

 

Only giving you a hard time.

post #3264 of 4471
Ha Richard cranium.
post #3265 of 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

Lets just say I'm guessing you don't like Tiger which is fine so your going to always find a way to down grade his accomplishments. I have no problem with that as long as you can just own up to it. Heres my last off topic comment on what you wrote.athletes get better generation after generation. I can't say for sure if Babe Ruth would be great now but my bet is no. By your logic the 72 dolphins could win in today's NFL. That's a complete joke IMO I don't think they could compete in the SEC. Its hard older people to see there heros be passed up by the new greats. I'm having trouble with LeBron.

 

 

 

I used to be a Tiger fan, but not so much any more. This noted, the day he gets to 19 majors I will say he was better than Jack. His performance swinging a golf club and his demeanor otherwise are two different things, and I can separate one from the other. Your assumption that I am "going to find ways to diminish his accomplishments" is plain false.

post #3266 of 4471
With Tiger you like him for his competitiveness, work ethic and accomplishments not his demeanor...
post #3267 of 4471

9Iron what do you think if Tiger gets to 16 majors and 95 tour wins by age 46.(when Jack won his last major) Who do you think would be better?

post #3268 of 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

Turtle beach I was asking that to 9iron. I think the fields back then we much weaker than now. If you look back at what I wrote you can see I think the argument could be made that Tigers WGC wins should be counted in a different category than normal pga events. I think Tigers quality of wins and strength of fields is much more impressive than 4 more majors.  I do think Jack was great and Im not trying to down play the 18 majors I just wish everyone would look at the career as a whole not just based on one # 18.

 

You are right,  I should have framed my response to your quote as being in support of your point, not in contrast to it.  The people who think Jack's fields were anywhere near as tough as the fields over the past 15 years are simply delusional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

 

 

Let me address your points one by one.

 

1. I wasn't born in 1908 either, but I know who the better mlb baseball players were in 1908 because I can read about them in history books. I never saw Home Run Baker or Cy Young play, but I know who they were much as I know who Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were. So again, if there was a better baseball player than Babe Ruth back in 1927, who was this person? I'm not saying it is impossible that there could have been such a player, but I am saying it is a pointless theoretical argument unless and until you actually provide a name and throw it into the debate.

 

So what?  Who was the best black player in 1908?  You don't know because whoever he was he was not allowed to play in the majors.  We know a little about some guys because they played in the "Negro" leagues.  Can you definitively say that Babe Ruth was better than Josh Gibson?  What is pointless is arguing that the very best in a pool 5000 were not a good as the very best on a pool of 500.  It is *possible* for that to be true?  Is it vanishingly unlikely for it to be true.  Yup.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

 

 

 

I used to be a Tiger fan, but not so much any more. This noted, the day he gets to 19 majors I will say he was better than Jack. His performance swinging a golf club and his demeanor otherwise are two different things, and I can separate one from the other. Your assumption that I am "going to find ways to diminish his accomplishments" is plain false.

 

And yet that is exactly what you are doing with your silly arguments about the strength of the fields.  Even given the weaker depth of the field in Jack's day there is the further factor that there probably was not one of Jack's majors was won in an event where 80 of the top 100 in the world played.  Whereas now that is true in the US Open and the PGA and probably pretty close to that in the British Open. 

 

Not to mention that fact that just like Babe Ruth, Jack enjoyed a significant portion of his career in an environment when blacks were not allowed to play in PGA events.  And to those who like to talk about what great ambassadors and gentlemen of the game Jack and Arnie were, at a time when together they represented the finest on golf, nether one of them did the slightest thing to speak out about the discrimination or tried to get it changed.  Which is worse, serial cheating on your wife or standing by silently while a large swath of people are systematically excluded from your sport when you have the power to speak out? 

 

Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."  He could have been talking about Jack and Arnie in the days of golfing apartheid.

post #3269 of 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

Jack enjoyed a significant portion of his career in an environment when blacks were not allowed to play in PGA events.

 

Seriously? Besides Tiger, name one black player that's been tearing up majors in the past 50 years.

post #3270 of 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

9Iron what do you think if Tiger gets to 16 majors and 95 tour wins by age 46.(when Jack won his last major) Who do you think would be better?

 

 

 

16 majors? I'd still go with Jack. 19 majors and I'd go with Tiger.

post #3271 of 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

 

 

 

16 majors? I'd still go with Jack. 19 majors and I'd go with Tiger.

 

So tour wins don't mean anything if they aren't majors? Really? Especially considering the deeper competition on tour now?

post #3272 of 4471

It is not even true that Jack played most of his career during a time when blacks were not allowed to play. That claim is simply false. Charlie Sifford is black, and he won the Long Beach Open in 1957 and earned a full Tour Card by 1961, before Jack even turned pro. Jack was still an amateur in 1961. All of Jack's tour wins, both majors and otherwise, come AFTER Charlie Sifford had his tour card.

post #3273 of 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

 

So tour wins don't mean anything if they aren't majors? Really? Especially considering the deeper competition on tour now?

 

 

 

I didn't say they didn't mean anything, I said I'd go with Jack, and I'm just using Tiger's own metric. Personally, I think Bobby Jones is the best ever as he won a greater percentage of the majors he entered, by far, than anyone else.

post #3274 of 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

Lets just say I'm guessing you don't like Tiger which is fine so your going to always find a way to down grade his accomplishments. I have no problem with that as long as you can just own up to it. Heres my last off topic comment on what you wrote.athletes get better generation after generation. I can't say for sure if Babe Ruth would be great now but my bet is no. By your logic the 72 dolphins could win in today's NFL. That's a complete joke IMO I don't think they could compete in the SEC. Its hard older people to see there heros be passed up by the new greats. I'm having trouble with LeBron.

 

I hope you're not talking to me. Because I'm an admitted Tiger fanboi. lol

 

Me too, but I was a Jack Nicklaus fan first.  That said, I can look at both without my rose colored glasses and state unequivocally that the two eras are so different that comparisons simply can't be made.  Maybe the fields are deeper now, but that wasn't entirely the case when Tiger first came up.  His example for work ethic and physical conditioning (and success) led others to copy him.  Another huge difference is the size of the prize.  Jack's competitors had more pressure to perform because they couldn't survive just making cuts, they had to be consistently top 20 good to earn enough to stay on Tour without a deep pocket sponsor.  Today they can not only make expenses, they can become very rich by just making cuts on a consistent basis.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

Turtle beach I was asking that to 9iron. I think the fields back then we much weaker than now. If you look back at what I wrote you can see I think the argument could be made that Tigers WGC wins should be counted in a different category than normal pga events. I think Tigers quality of wins and strength of fields is much more impressive than 4 more majors.  I do think Jack was great and Im not trying to down play the 18 majors I just wish everyone would look at the career as a whole not just based on one # 18.

 

You are right,  I should have framed my response to your quote as being in support of your point, not in contrast to it.  The people who think Jack's fields were anywhere near as tough as the fields over the past 15 years are simply delusional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

 

 

Let me address your points one by one.

 

1. I wasn't born in 1908 either, but I know who the better mlb baseball players were in 1908 because I can read about them in history books. I never saw Home Run Baker or Cy Young play, but I know who they were much as I know who Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were. So again, if there was a better baseball player than Babe Ruth back in 1927, who was this person? I'm not saying it is impossible that there could have been such a player, but I am saying it is a pointless theoretical argument unless and until you actually provide a name and throw it into the debate.

 

So what?  Who was the best black player in 1908?  You don't know because whoever he was he was not allowed to play in the majors.  We know a little about some guys because they played in the "Negro" leagues.  Can you definitively say that Babe Ruth was better than Josh Gibson?  What is pointless is arguing that the very best in a pool 5000 were not a good as the very best on a pool of 500.  It is *possible* for that to be true?  Is it vanishingly unlikely for it to be true.  Yup.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

 

 

 

I used to be a Tiger fan, but not so much any more. This noted, the day he gets to 19 majors I will say he was better than Jack. His performance swinging a golf club and his demeanor otherwise are two different things, and I can separate one from the other. Your assumption that I am "going to find ways to diminish his accomplishments" is plain false.

 

And yet that is exactly what you are doing with your silly arguments about the strength of the fields.  Even given the weaker depth of the field in Jack's day there is the further factor that there probably was not one of Jack's majors was won in an event where 80 of the top 100 in the world played.  Whereas now that is true in the US Open and the PGA and probably pretty close to that in the British Open. 

 

 

 

During much of Jack's era and earlier, there was not enough incentive to travel to or from Europe, even to play in a Major, unless you were relatively well off.  The probable earnings were less than the cost of getting there and living there for a week, or two weeks if you wanted time to acclimate and have real chance to compete.  Guys who were mostly living week to week, or making barely enough to stay out on Tour and support a family at home simply couldn't work transoceanic travel into the budget.

post #3275 of 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

 

Seriously? Besides Tiger, name one black player that's been tearing up majors in the past 50 years.

 

Vijay Singh, for one.  And because golf was so exclusionary, both at the pro level and the club level, blacks had few opportunities.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

Me too, but I was a Jack Nicklaus fan first.  That said, I can look at both without my rose colored glasses and state unequivocally that the two eras are so different that comparisons simply can't be made.  Maybe the fields are deeper now, but that wasn't entirely the case when Tiger first came up.  His example for work ethic and physical conditioning (and success) led others to copy him.  Another huge difference is the size of the prize.  Jack's competitors had more pressure to perform because they couldn't survive just making cuts, they had to be consistently top 20 good to earn enough to stay on Tour without a deep pocket sponsor.  Today they can not only make expenses, they can become very rich by just making cuts on a consistent basis.

 

During much of Jack's era and earlier, there was not enough incentive to travel to or from Europe, even to play in a Major, unless you were relatively well off.  The probable earnings were less than the cost of getting there and living there for a week, or two weeks if you wanted time to acclimate and have real chance to compete.  Guys who were mostly living week to week,   or making barely enough to stay out on Tour and support a family at home simply couldn't work transoceanic travel into the budget.

 

Well that is the point.  In the first 10-15 years of Jack's era the field at the British Open was weaker than than the John Deere is today.  Peter Thomson won 5 of them - and very little else in top level competition.  

 

As to your first paragraph, Jack disagrees with you.  He claims that right before Tiger came onto the scene the good players were as good as the top payers if his time, and the top players had become as good as the superstars of his era.  Jack also claimed that the increase in money increased competition, rather than decreased it, as you claim.  Ive quoted the relevant portion of Jack's 1996 biography before, but I can do it again if you don't recall those comments of his.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

 

 

 

I didn't say they didn't mean anything, I said I'd go with Jack, and I'm just using Tiger's own metric. Personally, I think Bobby Jones is the best ever as he won a greater percentage of the majors he entered, by far, than anyone else.

 

And yet you hold Tiger to HIS criteria but do not hold Jack to A) his amateur grand slam goal, B) his breaking Sam Snead's most wins goal, nor C) his professional grand slam in one calendar year goal.  By Jack's own criteria either Bobby Jones or Sam Snead should be regarded as the current GOAT.  Except that HE changed his criteria to most majors AFTER he had already accumulated the most majors.  So you accept him and his criteria.  

 

But if Tiger came out next week and announced that number of PGA tour victories is really the only fair way to compare players in different eras (which is EXACTLY what Jack said about majors, after the fact) I doubt if you would jump on THAT ship.  Or he could really ace Jack out the way Jack aced out Hagen and Vardon Hogan and Snead and claim that the combined total number of majors and WGC events is the only fair way to compare.  After all Jack had just as many opportunities to win WGCs as Vardon and Hagen had to win Masters.  Or Hogan and Snead had to win majors during the war.  

 

So you use Tiger's metric.  And I admire the fact that unlike Jack Tiger has never changed his metric, as Jack changed HIS metric.  But just because Tiger says it is his metric doesn't mean that we or history has to agree.  If no Tiger-level player emerges in the next 50 years I have very little doubt that in 2063 Tiger will be almost universally regarded as the greatest golfer of all time.  It may take that long, but it is not unusual for it to take a long time for history to catch up with reality - it sometimes takes that long to wash out the emotion and let people focus on the facts.


Edited by turtleback - 8/15/13 at 11:02pm
post #3276 of 4471
Turtle your my Tiger ; )
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