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 196

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

 
  • 70% (1619)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 29% (693)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2312 Total Votes  
post #3511 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchott View Post

Erik has it nailed but I just could not keep from commenting on the general lack of thought in this post.

"Jack's greatness came from being great." That just about sums it up--I'm convinced.
post #3512 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post

Jack never faked a back injury to cover for losing an event. Tiger just did. He's weak.

 

I'd love to see you tell him that to his face ... but on the internet, everybody's a tough guy...

post #3513 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post


lol. Sorry, I was sitting bored in a parking lot waiting for an hour to pick someone up when I wrote that. I was curious to see how many people I could piss off. I'm surprised you were it!

We should consider ourselves lucky  Apparently nowadays when some people get bored they kill someone.  In your case you just made an ass of yourself.  Good tradeoff.

post #3514 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghalfaire View Post

Stated simply "the ruler you use has every thing to do with the resulting measurement".   So in the case of who is the GOAT there just doesn't seem to be a "unbiased" ruler for the measurement. Iacas is correct it is just opinion.   But it certainly makes for interesting reading on the forum.  

 

Exactly, I'm not sure why my discussion of the Ruler in the Jack/Tiger thread was ruled OT because it involved another player and showed that the ruler a lot of people use was promoted by the guy it benefited who said it was the only fair one when it was patently unfair.  I would have thought Erik would want to promote discussion,.

 

Oh well.  Render unto Caeser . . .

post #3515 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

We should consider ourselves lucky  Apparently nowadays when some people get bored they kill someone.  In your case you just made an ass of yourself.  Good tradeoff.
yeah, you're right. I had to sully my urge to shoot someone by making an offhanded comment in a golf forum. Thanks for the psychological introspective.
post #3516 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post


yeah, you're right. I had to sully my urge to shoot someone by making an offhanded comment in a golf forum. Thanks for the psychological introspective.

So apparently we can add a lack of reading comprehension to your list of accomplishments.   

post #3517 of 4301

Sure I could quote you out of context too... that way I do not have to acknowledge any points you make.  

 

Tiger's wins simple make him the next spectacle to watch, not the greatest.  Why you are having this discussion is from the hype of said PR team.  He has the best potential "to be better than" Jack, but until he does it why do you insist anything else?  The best analogy I can come up with at this moment is George W. Bush with a banner behind him saying "Mission Accomplished".  Just like Tiger........ oh wait.....

 

Vague ideas of who are best have to have comparisons to something tangible, 18 Majors.... Tangible...

post #3518 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

Exactly, I'm not sure why my discussion of the Ruler in the Jack/Tiger thread was ruled OT because it involved another player and showed that the ruler a lot of people use was promoted by the guy it benefited who said it was the only fair one when it was patently unfair.  I would have thought Erik would want to promote discussion,.

 

Oh well.  Render unto Caeser . . .

 

Because, as I told you there, the thread title (and poll - I'd have just renamed the thread if it didn't have a poll) says JACK and TIGER. It leaves no room for another player. The question essentially asks "which do you like more: strawberries or bananas?" "I like oranges" is not a valid response.

post #3519 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

Because, as I told you there, the thread title (and poll - I'd have just renamed the thread if it didn't have a poll) says JACK and TIGER. It leaves no room for another player. The question essentially asks "which do you like more: strawberries or bananas?" "I like oranges" is not a valid response.

 

No, it is it is like asking which do you like more, strawberries or bananas, and people argue that the way to decide is by smearing them on your face, and I say that maybe eating them is a better way to decide.  

 

I don't know haw many ways I can say that the point was on the absurdity of the majors won metric.  Not that Hogan was the GOAT, but that the metric obviously is both unfair and makes no sense in his (and other earlier golfers).  Not that the metric SHOULD BE percent of majors won, just that it is ONE example of a metric that is fairer than majors won, 18>14, period.

post #3520 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weed Whacker View Post

Sure I could quote you out of context too... that way I do not have to acknowledge any points you make.  

 

Tiger's wins simple make him the next spectacle to watch, not the greatest.  Why you are having this discussion is from the hype of said PR team.  He has the best potential "to be better than" Jack, but until he does it why do you insist anything else?  The best analogy I can come up with at this moment is George W. Bush with a banner behind him saying "Mission Accomplished".  Just like Tiger........ oh wait.....

 

Vague ideas of who are best have to have comparisons to something tangible, 18 Majors.... Tangible...

 

Don't worry, if you ever make a point we will acknowledge it.  But saying that Tiger's greatness comes from his PR team is absurdity of the first order.

 

I would suggest that:

 

twice as many POY awards than Jack,

a higher win percentage than Jack, (in both PGA events AND majors)

10 5+ win seasons (Jack had 7)  

3 8+ win seasons (Jack had none)

four majors in a row which Jack ever did - in fact Jack never won 3 in a row.  

more money titles than Jack

More Vardons than Jack (8 to nothing)

 

. . . might have played a little bit of a role in establishing his greatness.  Certainly a bigger role than Nike, Buick or Mark Steinberg.

 

Geez, this is Tiger Woods we are talking about, not Ricky Fowler.

post #3521 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

I don't know haw many ways I can say that the point was on the absurdity of the majors won metric.

 

Probably as many times as I can point out that very few people seem to actually base their decision solely or even primarily on that.

post #3522 of 4301

To me Ben Hogan was an amazing guy! I've read two biographies on him and various other articles and his life was a true adventure.

 

You can easily argue that he was the best and most feared player in the world from 1940 to 1955 which is an impressive 15 year run. Unfortunately for Ben it took him a little too long to figure out his game and swing. If he would have had that knowledge, skill, and ability starting in the early 1930's there's a good chance he might have put up Tiger/Jack numbers in the Majors. He also had a World War and a near fatal car wreck in the time period that he was dominant so there were many lost opportunities during his "prime"!

 

The idea of comparing era's to begin with is beyond impossible. Every generation had/has an advantage over the previous one in so many ways. Ease of travel, more money, and advances in technology in both the equipment and in instruction and analysis(hand held video cameras, trackman,,,,,) just to name a few. People never seem to give these advantages much thought but they are huge and create a big divide in era's.

 

All that said, to me Hogan is definitely one of the best to ever play the game and was the GOAT of his era, just like Jack was in his and Tiger is today!

The Majors to me are the best measuring stick to determine who the best players are in their respective era's. They are there to test a player to the nth degree. Simply put, a pro can hit a mediocre approach shot to the green at the Bay Hill Classic and drain a 25 footer for birdie, but that same mediocre shot at a US Open may run down a false front into a bunker and force the player into a bogey or worse. Majors are different animals primarily because they are just so f#&$^#* hard and require the player to execute properly over and over again. Because of this you get the occasional "lucky winner" but overall from era to era the best players win the most majors so for now it's the best measuring stick we have! 

 

All of this of course is just my opinion, we all have one!

post #3523 of 4301
Oh the problem with your googled list is simply the fact that you only quote headlines. You pulled out vardons! Are you aware tigers eligibility for a vardon is 60 rounds, 20 less than Jacks? Ifyou read past Tigers headlines you would have noted in your cut and paste list that Jack rarely played 80 rounds a year to be eligible. In fact, if you break it down to the now relaxed eligibility Jack would be at 8 as well. So what this means is your trying to stack up measurements to over ride the biggest metrics. The metrics that everyone knows and focuses on, majors. Haha you used vardons........ I can't wait till you measure shoe size.

Now I am discussing like you, highlight your biggest oversight and ignoring the rest....

If I needed a golf partner I would take jack over tiger any day. Tigers accolades are earned and acknowledged loved watching him get into a zone and intimidate the field... What is his future? If he is the greatest his future has to be more wins in majors.

Why I focus majors over vardons....... You can't compare the two era's of golf, easily. Playing schedules, equipment improvements, opponents in the field, venues, etc... The majors are the most consistent measurement of the two era's of golf. Oh and if the list you created meant anything then yes tiger has more wins, then why is Jack still a question? Because those stats as good as they are don't measure up to major wins, unless you fell victim of Tigers PR machine.
post #3524 of 4301
Weed whacker you make a very good argument for Jack but what you and most people are forgetting is tiger is only 37 and this is already a legit debate. What will it be in 10 years?
post #3525 of 4301

The debate is legit and I acknowledged that point from the begining. Tigers abilities are far more impressive than Jack's but with those points conceeded Jack had a natural ability far greater than Tigers.  Jack did not grow up trying to be a golfer even after he dominated an amatuer career.  He tried to be an insurance salesman. The worlds that these two men evolved in are not similar, to say the least.   If you have any doubt I feel Jacks career and life is far more impressive than Tigers.... even if you compare the 1st 37 years.

 

 

If only Jack won more Vardon's maybe this discussion would end...... haha.... Vardons..... good grief....

post #3526 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weed Whacker View Post

The debate is legit and I acknowledged that point from the begining. Tigers abilities are far more impressive than Jack's but with those points conceeded Jack had a natural ability far greater than Tigers.  Jack did not grow up trying to be a golfer even after he dominated an amatuer career.  He tried to be an insurance salesman. The worlds that these two men evolved in are not similar, to say the least.   If you have any doubt I feel Jacks career and life is far more impressive than Tigers.... even if you compare the 1st 37 years.

 

 

If only Jack won more Vardon's maybe this discussion would end...... haha.... Vardons..... good grief....

 

First off, their lives don't matter. We're talking about their golf game. Second, you're talking about tangibles...well, wins are tangible, and Tiger has quite a few more than Jack, in less time.

post #3527 of 4301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weed Whacker View Post

The debate is legit and I acknowledged that point from the begining. Tigers abilities are far more impressive than Jack's but with those points conceeded Jack had a natural ability far greater than Tigers.  Jack did not grow up trying to be a golfer even after he dominated an amatuer career.  He tried to be an insurance salesman. The worlds that these two men evolved in are not similar, to say the least.   If you have any doubt I feel Jacks career and life is far more impressive than Tigers.... even if you compare the 1st 37 years.

 

 

If only Jack won more Vardon's maybe this discussion would end...... haha.... Vardons..... good grief....

Jack grew up with his father being a member at Scioto Country Club and started playing at age 10. At an early age he was coached by Jack Grout who had been successful on the PGA Tour. Don't tell us he did not grow up trying to be a golfer. Just read the Wiki on him. He was a prodigy same as Tiger.

post #3528 of 4301
What in the world makes you think he had natural abilities far greater than tiger lol.
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