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 207

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

 
  • 69% (1630)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (713)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2343 Total Votes  
post #3709 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Seriously Slice of Life?

 

I think you need to replace that with Fuzzy Zoellor

 

Absolutely not serious. lol

 

Highlight my post...just poking people for fun. 

post #3710 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
 

As far as I'm concerned, only 1 professional sport has a clear cut GOAT. Of course there are people who argue it, but it seems like the majority agree, which is something you can't say for baseball, football, soccer, hockey, etc.,

 

 

It can always change, but the Kobe's and LeBron's of the basketball world aren't gonna do it...

 

Pretty sure Dustin Johnson's soon-to-be father-in-law has a bone to pick with you on that statement.

 

But in general, yeah, you are right.  With baseball and football, it's the nature of the sports ... the positions are too different.  Even if you could agree on a GOAT QB, how in the world do you compare him to the GOAT linebacker or left tackle?  Same with hitters and pitchers.  (I guess that would be why you can make a really strong case for Babe Ruth, because he was great at both)

 

Golf is the only sport where everybody is doing the exact same thing AND you happen to have two players with similar enough credentials, that also happen to be quite a few cuts above everybody else, where a topic like this can be debated.

post #3711 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Pretty sure Dustin Johnson's soon-to-be father-in-law has a bone to pick with you on that statement.

But in general, yeah, you are right.  With baseball and football, it's the nature of the sports ... the positions are too different.  Even if you could agree on a GOAT QB, how in the world do you compare him to the GOAT linebacker or left tackle?  Same with hitters and pitchers.  (I guess that would be why you can make a really strong case for Babe Ruth, because he was great at both)

Golf is the only sport where everybody is doing the exact same thing AND you happen to have two players with similar enough credentials, that also happen to be quite a few cuts above everybody else, where a topic like this can be debated.

Even then you have the Mario Lemieux camp, and to a lesser extent Bobby Orr.
post #3712 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Tell me this then.  If both Tiger and Jack had identical records in competition, who would get your nod if it was absolutely required to pick one?  You can't honestly tell me that you wouldn't even consider Tiger's past bad acts off and on course as a factor in making such a decision.  Etiquette - on course demeanor - is part of the game of golf.  It isn't just about playing performance, and never has been.  It's a game among gentlemen, and maintaining ones composure when things go against you is part of the game.  Tiger loses that match up big time.  

Would a gentleman makes racist comments about black athletes not being able to play golf because of their physiques?  I don't recall Woods ever saying anything about whites.

 

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1994-08-21/sports/9408200266_1_nicklaus-blacks-comments

 

If we are to remove all philanders, swearers and players who get angry at themselves from consideration, then the potential candidates would reduce significantly.

 

When you read that article, there is nothing particularly grievous with what he said when taken in context.   He was referring to environmental influences on physique (about which he actually knew nothing and should have probably kept his mouth shut), and while maybe a bit naive, there was no intent at a racial slur behind it.  I'd say that the odds are very good that the white kids he was most in contact with tended to be quite sedentary (playing video games, watching TV, etc.), while the black kids (which he probably knew of mostly from reading, television, etc.) were always shooting hoops and such.  When you read farther, it's demonstrated that he made a point of inclusion, not exclusion in any clubs where he had a say in policy.  He made a mistake from ignorance, and naturally some of the left wing media tried to make a big deal out of it.  Even asking the question of him could be seen as baiting, just looking for a slip.  That's a tactic the media is famous for.

 

Tiger made a mistake too, but he knew all along that he was in the wrong and still kept at it.  No way it's as innocent as Nicklaus' little faux pas.

post #3713 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

When you read that article,

Pffft..."read the article" lol. I don't need to read no stinkin' article, I'm perfectly capable of forming my own opinions based on...my opinions.

Lol, we really need a sarcasm font. b2_tongue.gif
post #3714 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post


Even then you have the Mario Lemieux camp, and to a lesser extent Bobby Orr.

 

Never say "lesser" and Bobby Orr in the same sentence!

post #3715 of 4596

Fourputt,

 

I was only making the point that people can find any angle they want to make arguments for debates like this.  I do not think Nicklaus is a racist.  This thread has gone on since May 2006 and has gone in circles a hundred times.

post #3716 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

Even then you have the Mario Lemieux camp, and to a lesser extent Bobby Orr.

 

Mario > Wayne > Orr.  :-)

post #3717 of 4596
Who is the GOAT? Are we talking personally or professionally.
post #3718 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

Fourputt,

 

I was only making the point that people can find any angle they want to make arguments for debates like this.  I do not think Nicklaus is a racist.  This thread has gone on since May 2006 and has gone in circles a hundred times.

 

I do not think Jack is a racist either, but the fact is that he and Arnold had a chance to make a difference in the way the tour and even the Masters treated black players and they chose not to even make an effort.

post #3719 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

Fourputt,

 

I was only making the point that people can find any angle they want to make arguments for debates like this.  I do not think Nicklaus is a racist.  This thread has gone on since May 2006 and has gone in circles a hundred times.

 

I do not think Jack is a racist either, but the fact is that he and Arnold had a chance to make a difference in the way the tour and even the Masters treated black players and they chose not to even make an effort.

 

Why was it his responsibility?  The media has tried to put that on Tiger too, and it's bull$*&%.  Sorry if it bothers you, but being in the public eye doesn't make civil rights an automatic requirement of the job.  You people who think like that are way off base.  

post #3720 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Why was it his responsibility?  The media has tried to put that on Tiger too, and it's bull$*&%.  Sorry if it bothers you, but being in the public eye doesn't make civil rights an automatic requirement of the job.  You people who think like that are way off base.  

 

Agree completely. They're golfers, not politicians. 

post #3721 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Mario > Wayne > Orr.  :-)

 

Mario and Wayne who?

;-)

post #3722 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

 

Mario and Wayne who?

;-)

 

I only know Mario Lemieux (Or however the F*&^ you spell it) from a Sega hockey game I had as a kid.

 

Not exactly a huge NHL fan if you can't tell. Haha.

post #3723 of 4596

How did this be reduced to hockey and racism,lets get back on track.Competition has to factor in,some like lee trevino says all the time that the competition is tougher today then in his time.

personally i think hes being a bit gracious to todays players,granted only a few have supassed his major victories,actually two tiger,phil.if you look at the top twenty five winners on the pga of all time you will see most of them are in hogan/jack era.

 

The question then becomes was it easier to win back then,or where the players actually that much better at winning then they are today,we see alot guys today not being able to finish down the stretch,most of the time because of their inability to play smart golf.

post #3724 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by far and sure View Post

 

 

The question then becomes was it easier to win back then,or where the players actually that much better at winning then they are today,we see alot guys today not being able to finish down the stretch,most of the time because of their inability to play smart golf.

 

I also believe that there is a certain amount of complacency today that wasn't as prevalent in the Hagen - Hogan - Palmer eras (and even in much of Jack's era).  In those days, it was essentially place in the top 5 or 10 or you didn't earn enough to pay expenses, much less make a profit.  Now all that is required is to make cuts and you can earn a good living - even get wealthy with good budgeting and investing.  Place in the top 25 and you're in fat city.  

 

There is little inspiration to do more than that for a large percentage of players on Tour these days.  They have a talent which can be parlayed into financial security, and that's enough to satisfy them.  

post #3725 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post


Even then you have the Mario Lemieux camp, and to a lesser extent Bobby Orr.

 

This. And I hate the Bruins.

post #3726 of 4596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

I also believe that there is a certain amount of complacency today that wasn't as prevalent in the Hagen - Hogan - Palmer eras (and even in much of Jack's era).  In those days, it was essentially place in the top 5 or 10 or you didn't earn enough to pay expenses, much less make a profit.  Now all that is required is to make cuts and you can earn a good living - even get wealthy with good budgeting and investing.  Place in the top 25 and you're in fat city.

 

There is little inspiration to do more than that for a large percentage of players on Tour these days.  They have a talent which can be parlayed into financial security, and that's enough to satisfy them.

 

 

The guy who won the recent Web.com event won $180.000 that day and guaranteed his PGA Tour card for 2014. That is more money than 99.9% of people in this country earn in a year. He has also won $320,000 to date on the Web.com Tour in addition to another $77,000 in limited play on the PGA Tour for a total of $397.000.. A player didn't win that much money on the PGA Tour until 1979 (Watson) and he was the LEADER.

 

Arnold Palmer was the first PGA Tour player to break the $100,000 barrier in 1963. The guy who was 10th made $33,000. I can't imagine what the 60th guy made and only 60 players secured a card for the following year. The idea that these guys didn't have a level of competition makes no sense. They were fighting for their careers and families every single time out, usually starting out on Mondays to just qualify for that week's event.

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