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 204

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

 
  • 69% (1634)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (718)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2352 Total Votes  
post #3655 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


Where does e-penis size get factored into this?

 

Tiger back in front!

:-O

post #3656 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


Where does e-penis size get factored into this?

 

Jack didn't have access to the internets in his prime, and Tiger has proven that his real member works well enough to where he needs no EPS exaggerations. A non-factor. 

post #3657 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post
 

 

Tiger back in front!

:-O

 

post #3658 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post
 

 

Jack has 7 more Senior majors than Tiger, that's gotta count for something!  ;-) 

 

It does.  But not as much as Tiger's 18-0 lead in WGC wins.  ;-)

post #3659 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

 

So, since there WERE other great players in other eras, and you still came to the conclusion that Jack was the GOAT you really did NOT believe that you cannot compare players of different eras.  Until Tiger came along.  Which has been one of my points all along.  The can't compare argument did not exist until Tiger.  Just as the most majors = GOAT argument did not exist until Jack.

 

Other than number of majors, in what other significant performance measure way does Jack's career even measure up to Tigers?

 

Really, are you still doing this? Do you really think that you are going to change people's minds about this?

 

It's not a mathematical chart with pure, absolute, unadulterated evidence. If there ever was a sport invented with more nuance and subtlety than golf, I fail to see it. And BTW, it's all a matter of opinion based on more than your personal definitions of what it should be. Really, get over it.

 

:-)Jack:-)

post #3660 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

I still deduct from Tiger's account his extreme difficulty in controlling his driver, and his poor success in making a Sunday charge from 2 or 3 strokes behind.  Jack didn't have to make all of those "How the fv<# did he do that?" shots because his overall game was more in control.  But Jack's contemporaries were just as in awe of his 1 iron and other long irons as current golfers are of Tiger's wedges from all over creation.  The difference is that Jack was usually in the fairway, or just off - not as likely as Tiger is to be 30 or more yards out in no man's land.

 

 

Correct it does come down to opinion and I agree with what you wrote above.  Same reason I tend to lean towards Jack.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

 

 

I'll be honest, I have a real hard time seeing any case for Jack, at this point OTHER THAN 18>14.  Other than (silly, IMO) ancillary things like second place finishes or what a good family man and classy guy Jack was, I haven't heard a single substantive argument for Jack other than total number of majors.  So obviously the focus of MY argument is going to be that number of majors is not the best (or even a good) criterion for GOAT, and that before Jack it was NEVER used as the criterion for GOAT.

 

 

If number of majors is not a good criteria, what do you think the criteria should be?  And you can't be sure number of major wins wasn't part of the criteria when Jack was playing.

post #3661 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post

If number of majors is not a good criteria, what do you think the criteria should be?  And you can't be sure number of major wins wasn't part of the criteria when Jack was playing.

I think a good number of people would agree that Jones was the GOAT in 1930. Since majors was pretty much all he did, then they must have at least been an important factor, if not the whole equation.
post #3662 of 4685

Well back then it was just the US Amateur, US Open, British Amateur, British Open. So, its way hard to describe it. The metric changed, but i guess if you want to consider what ever the metric, or what ever the important tournaments are, then you should just bunch them for the player at hand. Maybe in a few years another important tournament will come to light. Look at the Fed Ex cup points, golfers are really making that a huge thing at the end of the year. Will 20 years from now, will we be comparing the majors and the fed ex matches? Those tournaments are bringing in some great fields of golfers.

post #3663 of 4685
Want to know how good the old guys were. .hit what they hit clubs and balls...
post #3664 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson Man View Post

Want to know how good the old guys were. .hit what they hit clubs and balls...

They were competing against people using the same equipment so your point is what?
post #3665 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post
 

 

Correct it does come down to opinion and I agree with what you wrote above.  Same reason I tend to lean towards Jack.  

 

 

If number of majors is not a good criteria, what do you think the criteria should be?  And you can't be sure number of major wins wasn't part of the criteria when Jack was playing.

 

I never said that majors is not ***a*** good criteria.  I said it is not good as ***the*** criteria.  As one factor among many it is fine.  As the single determining factor it sucks, because it writes out every single player who played before 1960 without even considering their merits.  It also puts too much of a premium on longevity, at the expense of degree of dominance, IMO.  

 

Almost every person who picks Jack ends up basing it on number of majors.  They say Tiger did this and Tiger did that but until he gets to 19 it is Jack.  They say it in many different ways,but that is what it boils down to.  And they don't even include Hogan or Hagen in the conversation, while some of them claim you cannot compare players of different eras.  But by writing Hogan and Hagen out of the conversation they HAVE compared players between eras and found these guys wanting.  Poor Hagen, he got 5 majors taken away from him when the Western Open stopped being considered a major and never got to be considered GOAT when HE had the most professional majors even after losing the 5 Westerns.

 

People frequently claim that Tiger fans seem to think that golf didn't start before 1996.  Yet it seems more like it is that the Jack supporters think that golf didn't exist before 1962.

post #3666 of 4685

Are we talking golf or as a man. Either way it’s Jack. I wonder how Woods would cope with the golf kit and greens from Jacks’ time.

 

 

Enjoy your golf.

post #3667 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post


They were competing against people using the same equipment so your point is what?

 

Exactly. It's not like Jack had an old rock ball and a 2" wooden driver while Palmer was playing Pro V1s and a Titliest 913. 

post #3668 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lookingfortruth View Post
 

Are we talking golf or as a man. Either way it’s Jack. I wonder how Woods would cope with the golf kit and greens from Jacks’ time.

 

 

Enjoy your golf.

 

I think he'd be just fine. A good golfer is a good golfer. I bet Tiger could use the old equipment today and still play good golf. He's a good ball striker, so he would still hit quality shots.

post #3669 of 4685
Tiger would be fine. Tiger's game is all about small ball, working the course. That is exactly the type of golf that was played back in Jack's time. Courses were not that long, and you had to play the course.
post #3670 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson Man View Post

Want to know how good the old guys were. .hit what they hit clubs and balls...

 

 

 

Agree.

 

There is an old wide angle film of Bobby Jones hitting 12 balls that are buried to their equator in a sand trap. A deep sand trap. Jones has to hit the ball at least ten feet high and carry 20 feet to allow the ball to roll out a few more feet to the pin. He hit all 12 within 3 feet!  I don't care how big or not big the field was back in his day, that man had some serious skills.

post #3671 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson Man View Post

Want to know how good the old guys were. .hit what they hit clubs and balls...

 

I have, i played with an old set of my grandpa's clubs. They are at least 40 years old. There was no trouble playing golf with those sets of clubs. People think its hard to hit irons shots with old blades, it really isn't if your hitting the ball first. Believe me, modern technology hasn't cured the amateur swing, no matter how much they advertise it helps. If you can hit the ball first, with a descending blow, you can play with old clubs and new clubs.

post #3672 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lookingfortruth View Post
 

Are we talking golf or as a man. Either way it’s Jack. I wonder how Woods would cope with the golf kit and greens from Jacks’ time.

 

 

Enjoy your golf.

 

Greatest of all time has nothing to do with the personality.  Ty Cobb was a bastard, but he was still the greatest hitter for average in baseball history.

 

I wonder how Jack would cope with a world in which every player could, by using hybrids, hit the shots that he alone could hit with long irons, in his day.  And how he would cope with players whose short game has been tremendously improved by the use of 60* wedges.  It cuts both ways.  And Jack himself said it is HARDER for the best to separate themselves because of the equipment improvements.  They help the weaker players far more than the stronger players.

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