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 208

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

 
  • 70% (1618)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 29% (692)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2310 Total Votes  
post #3727 of 4273

Basketball GOAT is Wilt Chamberlain. They changed the rules to make it easier for Jordan, but they changed the rules to make it substantially harder for Wilt.

 

Wilt is a part of 72 NBA records, 68 of which he still to this day holds by himself. The man retired 40 years ago, and no one has been able to take his records away. That says it all right there to me. 100 points in a single game, averaged 50 ppg for a season, 55 rebounds in one game against Bill Russell, averaged 28 rebounds for a season (half that will lead the league nowadays), and so many more it is difficult to list.

 

Most of you are too young to have seen this man play. Almost as big as Shaquille, but twice as athletic.

post #3728 of 4273
Wilt seriously. Your an idiot.
post #3729 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

Wilt seriously. Your an idiot.

 

Oh the irony...

post #3730 of 4273
With 3700+ posts, I thought I'd ask even if brought up again.

How about Harry Vardon? Inventor of the modern swing?

What about Bobby Jones? I think he's the only one with a grand slam in one year, and created the Masters.

Wait for sound of gunshots....
post #3731 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

With 3700+ posts, I thought I'd ask even if brought up again.

How about Harry Vardon? Inventor of the modern swing?

What about Bobby Jones? I think he's the only one with a grand slam in one year, and created the Masters.

Wait for sound of gunshots....

 

Except that two wins of his slam were amateur competitions where the pros of his era couldn't even be in the field.  No matter how good he was, I can't help but put an asterisk on his slam.  Bobby Jones was a great player, but he was never more than a part time golfer.  He chose to be a lawyer instead of a pro golfer, just as Nelson chose to retire early to herd cattle.  Either one may have had the talent to be GOAT, but in both cases their choices really put a crimp on their chances to ever be considered for greatest of all time.

post #3732 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

Wilt seriously. Your an idiot.

 

 

 

It is "you're", not "your". On top of that you missed both a comma and a question mark in your first sentence, a sentence containing a mere two little words! One wouldn't think such a feat possible, but you managed it quite easily.

 

Just who is the idiot here?

post #3733 of 4273
Jack never trained in combat boots -adv. Tiger
Jack never jogged with Navy Seals - adv. Tiger
GOAT: Tiger
post #3734 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

Although There may be some criteria that are important to some that are inherently stupid. ("How do you measure yourself against other golfers?" "By height.")
.

Inherently stupid criteria...
post #3735 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

This. And I hate the Bruins.
I hate the Bruins more than anyone else on this forum, trust me a1_smile.gif

But Bobby Orr changed the game. Dude won scoring titles as a d-man and revolutionized the position.

Cam Neely was a douche though and don't even get me started on Rat Marchand.

But to stay more or less on topic, I think the Mario vs Wayne comparison is a perfect comparative to the Tiger vs Jack debate. Depending in the criteria you use and argument can be made either way. Over stats point to Gretzky but a smaller window of stats point to Lemieux.

For the record I'm in the Gretzky camp, dudes point total in assists is greater than the overall point differential between him and #2, that's dominance, however I can totally see the argument for Lemieux and I don't think you can find a better comparison to Tiger vs Jack.

Edit* I was going to fix my typos but it's my birthday so **** all y'all.
b2_tongue.gif
post #3736 of 4273

Okay guys, time to bust out the new version of this one:

 

:offtopic:

 

As you can see, he's nicer, but the message is the same.

post #3737 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Okay guys, time to bust out the new version of this one:

z8_offtopic.gif

As you can see, he's nicer, but the message is the same.

You forgot to wish me a happy birthday...
post #3738 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

You forgot to wish me a happy birthday...
Happy Birthday.

Wish you the best for many more.
post #3739 of 4273

Agreed,I think that there has been some success for players from the web.com tour on the pga tour,but as a whole there is a huge turnover every year for the last fifty spots on the pga tour.that leaves 75golfers who are fairly steady.

My opinion is that the need for the turn over is to inject  some competition. and to try and fight off the complacency that is so prevalent on the tour today.

post #3740 of 4273

I stayed out of this for a long time now, but I'm just going to say that I don't think it's possible or fair to say anyone is "the greatest of all time" only that they are/were the greatest in their era/time. Too many variables have changed from course layout to technology and there is no way to really quantify they level of competition each faces.

post #3741 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

I stayed out of this for a long time now, but I'm just going to say that I don't think it's possible or fair to say anyone is "the greatest of all time" only that they are/were the greatest in their era/time. Too many variables have changed from course layout to technology and there is no way to really quantify they level of competition each faces.

 

This is exactly what several of us have been saying, but a few, like Turtle, just can't let it go and simply appreciate each for his contribution to the game during the period when he played.  There is no magical mathematical formula that's going to resolve the dilemma.  No matter how you twist and turn the numbers, the gulf between the eras is too wide to bridge convincingly.

 

Why does there have to be a greatest anyway?  There are a dozen or more golfing greats who we look up to, even revere, for what they have given to the game of golf, and it does a disservice to them to say that their contribution and career is less significant than another's just because the opportunities were different during the era when they played.  Give each his due, and don't worry about who stands an inch higher on the podium than the next one.

post #3742 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

This is exactly what several of us have been saying, but a few, like Turtle, just can't let it go and simply appreciate each for his contribution to the game during the period when he played.  There is no magical mathematical formula that's going to resolve the dilemma.  No matter how you twist and turn the numbers, the gulf between the eras is too wide to bridge convincingly.

 

Why does there have to be a greatest anyway?  There are a dozen or more golfing greats who we look up to, even revere, for what they have given to the game of golf, and it does a disservice to them to say that their contribution and career is less significant than another's just because the opportunities were different during the era when they played.  Give each his due, and don't worry about who stands an inch higher on the podium than the next one.

 

Yep. The only way to judge, would be to get a time machine, bring "prime" Tiger back to "prime" Jack days, give them the same equipment and 1 year to practice with it on the same course.

 

Then, over the course of 7 months, they play 13 rounds. If and only if one player wins 8 of the 13, will they stake claim to the GOAT title. 

 

Why not 7? Because that's too close...8-5 is decisive. 

 

So when one of you finds the flux capacitor, we can end this debate...

post #3743 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

This is exactly what several of us have been saying, but a few, like Turtle, just can't let it go and simply appreciate each for his contribution to the game during the period when he played.  There is no magical mathematical formula that's going to resolve the dilemma.  No matter how you twist and turn the numbers, the gulf between the eras is too wide to bridge convincingly.

 

Why does there have to be a greatest anyway?  There are a dozen or more golfing greats who we look up to, even revere, for what they have given to the game of golf, and it does a disservice to them to say that their contribution and career is less significant than another's just because the opportunities were different during the era when they played.  Give each his due, and don't worry about who stands an inch higher on the podium than the next one.

We don't have to come up with an answer. It's obviously a great topic of discussion.

post #3744 of 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchott View Post
 

We don't have to come up with an answer. It's obviously a great topic of discussion.

 

Except that there are a few here who insist that there is an answer and that their answer is the only right one.  I simply dispute both of those claims.

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