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 183

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

 
  • 69% (1634)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (716)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2350 Total Votes  
post #3277 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 

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

 

Vijay Singh technically isn't black. b2_tongue.gif

 

Either way, you're talking past tense...I'm talking now. How many african-americans are tearing up the PGA besides Tiger? Nobody. So there's no reason to think there would have been a bunch back in the 70s.

 

Football, sure I get the argument, same with baseball. Golf? Nah.

post #3278 of 4671
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.
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 

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

 

 

 

 

Oh Lord, having a conversation with you is going to be impossible. For starters, you think Vijay Singh is black. I mean, seriously? You actually believe Vijay Singh is black? Here is a clue, he is Indo-Fijian of Hindu background. That is not black. Figure it out.

 

Second, you have been in this thread for a long, long time. Despite your obvious lack of knowledge you have used this thread to call many people names, a clear sign of immaturity. You can have the thread. I'm not going to converse any longer with you.

 

Vijay is black? The internet never ceases to amaze me. That really is priceless.

post #3279 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

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.
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 

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

 

 

 

 

Oh Lord, having a conversation with you is going to be impossible. For starters, you think Vijay Singh is black. I mean, seriously? You actually believe Vijay Singh is black? Here is a clue, he is Indo-Fijian of Hindu background. That is not black. Figure it out.

 

Second, you have been in this thread for a long, long time. Despite your obvious lack of knowledge you have used this thread to call many people names, a clear sign of immaturity. You can have the thread. I'm not going to converse any longer with you.

 

Vijay is black? The internet never ceases to amaze me. That really is priceless.

 

Is Vijay of African decent? No. Had he played in the 50's, would he have been negatively affected by racism and segregation? Probably.

 

That being said, I don't think you can discount anything that happened in golf history because of a lack of black players like you can with other sports.  

post #3280 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 

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 9iron View Post

For starters, you think Vijay Singh is black. I mean, seriously? You actually believe Vijay Singh is black? Here is a clue, he is Indo-Fijian of Hindu background. That is not black. Figure it out.

 

Vijay is black? The internet never ceases to amaze me. That really is priceless.

Vijay Singh isn't African-American (obviously) since he's, you know, neither African nor American.  But let's be realistic here ... he is black.

 

Answer me this question, and be honest;  Do you think that Vijay would have been welcome at Augusta National, Shoal Creek, or any of the other exclusionary golf clubs back before 1990 (or whenever it was that they decided to stop being racists)?

 

Of course not.  And why?  Because, duh, for all (racist) intents and purposes, the dude is black.  Vladimir Guerrero, David Ortiz, et. al are black.  Mario Balotelli ... he's just Italian. ;)

post #3281 of 4671

I don't know how you can say Jack had tougher competetion. It was the 60's and so on.. yeah, they had guys like Arnold Palmer and others.. but Tiger also has fierce competitors like Rory, Adam Scott, Phil Mickelson, etc.. 

 

The fairways are longer and shorter today, then they were in Jacks age, but we have to keep in mind that the equipment back in Jacks age was nothing even *close* to Tigers. 

 

It's really impossible to decide who's better. Both players are in completely different ages and technology. So, both are the best in their age.

post #3282 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

Vijay is black? The internet never ceases to amaze me. That really is priceless.

You can call him a "person of colour" then, and assume that he would be subject to racism in that a "black" person would be. Is that OK, or does you definition of "black" have to be as you'd like it to be?

Tiger isn't "black" either, but the same applies. He looks as if he is and that is what bigots see. I don't think it's fair of you to criticise another member who is essentially correct. 

You are being overly pedantic.

Tiger isn't a "negro" nor is he "African American", but he and Vijay are "black" according to commonly held standards  (or prejudices), whatever you like to call them.

post #3283 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post

You can call him a "person of colour" then, and assume that he would be subject to racism in that a "black" person would be. Is that OK, or does you definition of "black" have to be as you'd like it to be?

Tiger isn't "black" either, but the same applies. He looks as if he is and that is what bigots see. I don't think it's fair of you to criticise another member who is essentially correct. 

You are being overly pedantic.

Tiger isn't a "negro" nor is he "African American", but he and Vijay are "black" according to commonly held standards  (or prejudices), whatever you like to call them.

I'm sure that's true but pretty much all of the African American community would say he is "black" and would also say Vijay is "black" and also say that President Obama is "black".

 

The African American community is not what comes to my mind for the stereotypical "bigot".

post #3284 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post

I'm sure that's true but pretty much all of the African American community would say he is "black" and would also say Vijay is "black" and also say that President Obama is "black".

 

 

LOL, and what would they say in Alabama?

post #3285 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

LOL, and what would they say in Alabama?

I've known plenty of bigots in my life and just as many were from north of the Mason Dixon line.

post #3286 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post

I've known plenty of bigots in my life and just as many were from north of the Mason Dixon line.

Totally agree. I was just playing with you, it's all good.
c2_beer.gif
post #3287 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

 

Vijay Singh isn't African-American (obviously) since he's, you know, neither African nor American.  But let's be realistic here ... he is black.

 

Answer me this question, and be honest;  Do you think that Vijay would have been welcome at Augusta National, Shoal Creek, or any of the other exclusionary golf clubs back before 1990 (or whenever it was that they decided to stop being racists)?

 

Of course not.  And why?  Because, duh, for all (racist) intents and purposes, the dude is black.  Vladimir Guerrero, David Ortiz, et. al are black.  Mario Balotelli ... he's just Italian. ;)

 

 

 

Golfingdad, the question for me isn't whether Vijay would be welcomed at a 1950's era Shoal Creek (admittedly, he probably would not), but would he have been welcomed on the PGA Tour. It is impossible to know.

 

As an Indo Fijian, Singh probably experienced more ethnic discrimination in Fiji than he ever experienced in the USA or anywhere else in the world. He grew up quite poor, and the subject of overt racism by ethic Fijians against him because of his Indian background. That did not happen here, it happened in his own country of Fiji.

 

To the best of my knowledge, Singh is the first Hindu to qualify for the Tour, Fijian, Indian, or from any other place where Hinduism is practiced. To the best of my knowledge, he is also the first player from what could be included as a Polynesian (not exactly, but close) Island to qualify to play on Tour. Once he qualified he played. No one ever tried to stop him. When Japanese players Jumbo Ozaki, Tommy Nakijima and Isao Aoki qualified in the 1960's thru the 1980's, they played. The USA interred Japanese during WW2, but these Japanese were welcomed with open arms. 

 

f you want to talk about golfers that might look like Vijay Singh, since he is of Indian descent, let's talk about Golf in India. India's governing body for golf is The India Golf Union. It only began in 1955, so one can assume no player from India was good enough to play on Tour until well after that date. Unless someone here can name one. I tried to find one using search engines and could not. That country is huge, but still has only 156 golf courses, or about 40% the number that exist in the State of Virginia, a place fractionally the size of India.

 

I agree the world was different then, in lots of ways. Both here in the US., and everywhere else on the planet. But we have gotten so far side tracked here it isn't funny. None of this suggests there is someone out there that would have been better than Jack Nicklaus, if only he wasn't discriminated against. The thread has basically just devolved into a political argument.

post #3288 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelzzy View Post

I don't know how you can say Jack had tougher competetion. It was the 60's and so on.. yeah, they had guys like Arnold Palmer and others.. but Tiger also has fierce competitors like Rory, Adam Scott, Phil Mickelson, etc.. 

 

The fairways are longer and shorter today, then they were in Jacks age, but we have to keep in mind that the equipment back in Jacks age was nothing even *close* to Tigers. 

 

It's really impossible to decide who's better. Both players are in completely different ages and technology. So, both are the best in their age.

 

My course was a PGA Tour stop from 1963-1980. We have a 240 yard par 3 that NOBODY hit with irons back in the day. Now we have knuckleheaded teenagers htting it (pin high,anyway) with 6-irons.

 

I think it's more the ball than anything else, but the equipment is also far more forgiving. I doubt a lot of the successful muscle guys on tour today would have ever got close to playing on the tour with the old equipment.

JMO.

post #3289 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelzzy View Post

The fairways are longer and shorter today ...

LOL ... huh???  ;)

post #3290 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelzzy View Post

The fairways are longer and shorter today ...

LOL ... huh???  ;)

 

Yeah.. I did a double take on that too.  Interesting observation.  z4_blink.gif

post #3291 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

LOL ... huh???  ;)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

Yeah.. I did a double take on that too.  Interesting observation.  z4_blink.gif

I did too. I assume he means longer and narrower. 

post #3292 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

 

 

 

Oh Lord, having a conversation with you is going to be impossible. For starters, you think Vijay Singh is black. I mean, seriously? You actually believe Vijay Singh is black? Here is a clue, he is Indo-Fijian of Hindu background. That is not black. Figure it out.

 

Second, you have been in this thread for a long, long time. Despite your obvious lack of knowledge you have used this thread to call many people names, a clear sign of immaturity. You can have the thread. I'm not going to converse any longer with you.

 

Vijay is black? The internet never ceases to amaze me. That really is priceless.

 

Really?  THIS is what you've got?  The PGA policy was Caucasions only.  The question isn't whether Vijay is black, although every racist in the 50's and 60's would sure have considered him as black, but was he Caucasian?  I hope even YOU can admit that he wasn't, and therefore would NOT have been allowed on the PGA Tour.  Ah, you didn't know the policy was Causasions only, did you?  There goes my "obvious lack of knowledge" again.  And when a race is systematically excluded from a sport for a long long time it will take an equally long time for much of a presence to build back up.  Lee Elder and Charlie Sifford were never accorded their proper place where they could inspire young blacks to take up the game.  And while the formal policy may have ended in 1961, the discrimination did not.  And much of it was aided and abetted by PLAYERS who are now regarded as the apotheosis of the gentlemanly aspect of professional golf, in a kinder gentler era.  In a pig's eye!

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=y-3DU5dL4fQC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=pga+caucasian+policy&source=bl&ots=6hfXFgurFj&sig=RrmmCRS0o5Du_eZ4aUazROMXHjs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5YYOUsjPC9DlyAGu84A4&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=pga%20caucasian%20policy&f=false

post #3293 of 4671

I thought this was a thread about Tiger and Jack?

 

Personally, I think Jack is the best all time golfer for his time. Tiger is pretty incredible as well, and the greatest? TBD.

They both have and can dominate the field (except that Jack is probably not going to compete at this time a1_smile.gif).).

post #3294 of 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

I thought this was a thread about Tiger and Jack?

 

Personally, I think Jack is the best all time golfer for his time. Tiger is pretty incredible as well, and the greatest? TBD.

They both have and can dominate the field (except that Jack is probably not going to compete at this time a1_smile.gif).).

 

Don't you think that the circumstances in which each played and the strength of the fields are relevant points?  And when people mark Tiger down for his private pecadillos don't you think it is fair to point out Jack's moral failure to take any kind of stand whatsoever against the rampant discrimination that existed in golf for at least the first half of his career?

 

As far as dominating the field, Jack was the best player over the period 1962 to 1980, or so, but you would be surprised at the relatively few number of those years he was actually the best player for that year he was always in the top 2 or three but not #1 all that many times - in that 19 years he was POY 5 times).  And that number is nowhere near the number of years that Tiger was the best player for the year (for example, POY 10 times - twice as many as Jack in a shorter period of time). And Jack's years as best player of the year were nowhere near as dominating as Tiger's years as best player for the year.  If you doubt that, list the years in which you consider Jack to have been the best player of the year and we can compare them to Tiger's years as best player of the year, both as to number and as to degree of domination.  But I assure you, it will not be close.  18>14 is about the only argument left for Jack's supremacy.  Virtually every other metric goes Tiger's way.

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