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 218

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

 
  • 69% (1628)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (703)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2331 Total Votes  
post #3907 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

How you can honestly think that when more people are playing golf the quality of players stays the same? Do you think that personal trainers, dietitians, swing coaches, video analysis, ect.... hasn't improved the quality of players?
 
While those are fair points, the single greatest aspect of improving the depth of the field is the money.  People can make great livings in golf and that increases the demand for participation at the highest level.  It draws from a wider range of demographics, cultures, regions, athletes, etc.  That's also a part of the reason why they invest so much in their diet, nutrition and fitness: the rewards are great if they maximize their potential.

 

But it also reduces the incentive to play any better than is required to get a decent payday.  When you can keep your card and make a more than comfortable living while hanging at number 100 on the money list, there is no survival incentive.  In 2010 #100 was Greg Chalmers at $989,415 - almost a millionaire in one year, and only the most vigilant TV viewers have ever even heard of him.  #100 in 1980, Peter Oosterhuis, made $35,612.  In 30 years, Chalmer's earnings were 27.8 times what Oosterhuis made.  No way that simple inflation can account for that.  Unless a player has an unusually strong competitive streak, he is going to lose some of that drive to win as soon as the money starts rolling in.  It doesn't matter what he consciously wants if he has lost that subconscious hunger which is needed to continue to play at his absolute best when the conscious mind can't see a need for it.  Add to that the inevitable distractions that come with quick success and you have most of the top half of the money list in today's game.

 

During most of Jack's career, #100 didn't keep his card and didn't make enough to go out for a dollar meal at Mickey D's.  There was a deeper need to win.  

 

I'm not on either side in this argument, because I'm in the camp that believes that there is simply too much that is different between the two eras to make any sort of true comparison.  Both are the best of their time.  But I can refute some of the attempts to argue things like field depth.  The variables simply do not support the validity of such comparisons. 

post #3908 of 4445
I think we all believe that as much as we believe phan likes Tiger Woods-You both like Jack and saying you arent on either side doesnt make it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

I'm not on either side in this argument, because I'm in the camp that believes that there is simply too much that is different between the two eras to make any sort of true comparison.  Both are the best of their time.  But I can refute some of the attempts to argue things like field depth.  The variables simply do not support the validity of such comparisons. 
post #3909 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

But it also reduces the incentive to play any better than is required to get a decent payday.  When you can keep your card and make a more than comfortable living while hanging at number 100 on the money list, there is no survival incentive.  In 2010 #100 was Greg Chalmers at $989,415 - almost a millionaire in one year, and only the most vigilant TV viewers have ever even heard of him.  #100 in 1980, Peter Oosterhuis, made $35,612.  In 30 years, Chalmer's earnings were 27.8 times what Oosterhuis made.  No way that simple inflation can account for that.  Unless a player has an unusually strong competitive streak, he is going to lose some of that drive to win as soon as the money starts rolling in.  It doesn't matter what he consciously wants if he has lost that subconscious hunger which is needed to continue to play at his absolute best when the conscious mind can't see a need for it.  Add to that the inevitable distractions that come with quick success and you have most of the top half of the money list in today's game.

 

During most of Jack's career, #100 didn't keep his card and didn't make enough to go out for a dollar meal at Mickey D's.  There was a deeper need to win.  

 

I'm not on either side in this argument, because I'm in the camp that believes that there is simply too much that is different between the two eras to make any sort of true comparison.  Both are the best of their time.  But I can refute some of the attempts to argue things like field depth.  The variables simply do not support the validity of such comparisons. 

Do you think DJ, Keegan, Web, Tiger, ect.... dont have drive to win?  If you think professional athletes lose their drive once the money starts rolling in you must be smoking something. Why does Floyd Mayweather  at 37-38 years old still train his ass of to box?  The guy has $425 mil in the bank do you think he's lost his drive?

post #3910 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

But it also reduces the incentive to play any better than is required to get a decent payday.  When you can keep your card and make a more than comfortable living while hanging at number 100 on the money list, there is no survival incentive.  In 2010 #100 was Greg Chalmers at $989,415 - almost a millionaire in one year, and only the most vigilant TV viewers have ever even heard of him.  #100 in 1980, Peter Oosterhuis, made $35,612.  In 30 years, Chalmer's earnings were 27.8 times what Oosterhuis made.  No way that simple inflation can account for that.  Unless a player has an unusually strong competitive streak, he is going to lose some of that drive to win as soon as the money starts rolling in.  It doesn't matter what he consciously wants if he has lost that subconscious hunger which is needed to continue to play at his absolute best when the conscious mind can't see a need for it.  Add to that the inevitable distractions that come with quick success and you have most of the top half of the money list in today's game.

 

During most of Jack's career, #100 didn't keep his card and didn't make enough to go out for a dollar meal at Mickey D's.  There was a deeper need to win.  

 

I'm not on either side in this argument, because I'm in the camp that believes that there is simply too much that is different between the two eras to make any sort of true comparison.  Both are the best of their time.  But I can refute some of the attempts to argue things like field depth.  The variables simply do not support the validity of such comparisons. 

I appreciate that you aren't on either side of this, because neither am I, and I understand your point but I have one question:

 

How do you reconcile "desperation" with "better?"  You can say that in Jack's day you needed to win to put food on the table, and while that certainly may have been true ... does it mean that the competition was stronger?  I don't think so, I just think it just means more guys bit their nails more, and slept less comfortably at night.  (I'd still argue that this frame of mind would actually lead to worse play for a lot of people because they were too damned stressed out to concentrate)

post #3911 of 4445
Quote:
 

Do you think DJ, Keegan, Web, Tiger, ect.... dont have drive to win?  If you think professional athletes lose their drive once the money starts rolling in you must be smoking something. Why does Floyd Mayweather  at 37-38 years old still train his ass of to box?  The guy has $425 mil in the bank do you think he's lost his drive?

 

Surely you can't compare a boxer with a golfer.   Mayweather has been hit in the head too many times to possibly relate logic to any decision he makes.  For all you know he's being manipulated by his manager like generations of boxers before him.  In case you can't tell, I have no respect for a so called sport where the sole object is to beat the crap out of your opponent and do as much damage to him as possible.  

 

And since this thread is about Tiger, then of course he is a focus of this discussion.  And I don't include him in that group of underachievers.  He has proven his desire time and again, and he is still winning at a clip which laps the rest of the Tour, despite the lack of Major wins of late.  For some of the others you mentioned, the jury is still out.  Most haven't been around long enough to make a definitive assessment, however:  

 

DJ won once in 2013, and that was at the ToC, which is little more than an exhibition tournament.  Aside from that he had 5 top 10's.

 

Bradley and Simpson didn't win in 2013, and beteen them had 12 top 10's.  You chose pretty bad examples to support your contention.  Those are stats worthy of Scott Hoch.

post #3912 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Surely you can't compare a boxer with a golfer.   Mayweather has been hit in the head too many times to possibly relate logic to any decision he makes.  For all you know he's being manipulated by his manager like generations of boxers before him.  In case you can't tell, I have no respect for a so called sport where the sole object is to beat the crap out of your opponent and do as much damage to him as possible.  

 

And since this thread is about Tiger, then of course he is a focus of this discussion.  And I don't include him in that group of underachievers.  He has proven his desire time and again, and he is still winning at a clip which laps the rest of the Tour, despite the lack of Major wins of late.  For some of the others you mentioned, the jury is still out.  Most haven't been around long enough to make a definitive assessment, however:  

 

DJ won once in 2013, and that was at the ToC, which is little more than an exhibition tournament.  Aside from that he had 5 top 10's.

 

Bradley and Simpson didn't win in 2013, and beteen them had 12 top 10's.  You chose pretty bad examples to support your contention.  Those are stats worthy of Scott Hoch.

No, he's using Mayweather as a random example.  Surely you recognize that a whole, whole lot of people who play sports including (especially) those that love it enough to pursue it to that level all have unbelievable amounts of drive.  That doesn't just go away because you become successful.

 

And, besides, it's my opinion that drive is over-rated (as it relates to the topic of comparing Tigers and Jacks competition, at least)

post #3913 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

Surely you can't compare a boxer with a golfer.   Mayweather has been hit in the head too many times to possibly relate logic to any decision he makes.

 

Uhm… :doh: Rick, please stop talking about things like this for your own sake.

 

And if Rick honors that request, that means he can't defend himself either, so I'm also asking that nobody respond to it as well.

post #3914 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Surely you can't compare a boxer with a golfer.   Mayweather has been hit in the head too many times to possibly relate logic to any decision he makes.  For all you know he's being manipulated by his manager like generations of boxers before him.  In case you can't tell, I have no respect for a so called sport where the sole object is to beat the crap out of your opponent and do as much damage to him as possible.  

 

And since this thread is about Tiger, then of course he is a focus of this discussion.  And I don't include him in that group of underachievers.  He has proven his desire time and again, and he is still winning at a clip which laps the rest of the Tour, despite the lack of Major wins of late.  For some of the others you mentioned, the jury is still out.  Most haven't been around long enough to make a definitive assessment, however:  

 

DJ won once in 2013, and that was at the ToC, which is little more than an exhibition tournament.  Aside from that he had 5 top 10's.

 

Bradley and Simpson didn't win in 2013, and beteen them had 12 top 10's.  You chose pretty bad examples to support your contention.  Those are stats worthy of Scott Hoch.

First off you don't watch boxing Floyd doesn't get hit. If you don't have respect for boxing somethings wrong with you.  So if a guy doesn't win in a given year hes someone that settles for top 10's? So if Phil doesnt win next year he will have lost the drive to win?  People don't get to that level by settling I don't know how much easier to put it. Here Ill try  ITS NOT ALL ABOUT $$$$$$$$$.  I don't know you or what you do for a living but if you have a job its for money. A career on the other hand is something different.  You dont choose a career based on salary its something you love.  Being a professional golfer is a career.  No one would, has, or could make it on tour if golf was their job. 

post #3915 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post
 

 

I read this the other day and it sealed the deal for me:

 

Allow me To "Once and For All to Put to Death the Myth that Jack Nicklaus is the Greatest Player in the History of the Game of Golf" for Good!

World Wide Wins - Tiger 88, Jack 79.
PGA Tour Wins- Tiger 77, Jack 73.
European Tour Wins- Tiger 8, Jack 0.
Player of the Year- Tiger 10, Jack 5.
PGA Tour Money Titles- Tiger 9, Jack 8.
Vardon Trophy Scoring Titles- Tiger 8, Jack 0!
Most Wins per Season Titles- Tiger 11, Jack 5.
Most Wins in a Season - Tiger 9, Jack 7.
Most Consecutive Cuts Made in a Row- Tiger 142, Jack 109.
Missed Cuts- Tiger 10, Jack 88
Career Scoring Avg- Tiger 68.75, Jack 70.28 (Thru age 36 for Both)
Major Championships- Tiger 14 of 60, Jack 18 of 112 (thru age 49 only)
World Golf Championships- Tiger 18 of 45. Jack Nothing Comparable at all.

 

I love facts and stats. Thanks.  However, the question remains: If relevancy in the Majors is the gold standard, how does Tiger's Majors record of 24 - 1st, 2nd and 3rd finishes stack up against Jack's 37 - 1st and 2nd's alone? 

 

 

post #3916 of 4445
It's not the gold standard it wasn't until Jack decided it was.
post #3917 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Surely you can't compare a boxer with a golfer.   Mayweather has been hit in the head too many times to possibly relate logic to any decision he makes.  For all you know he's being manipulated by his manager like generations of boxers before him.  In case you can't tell, I have no respect for a so called sport where the sole object is to beat the crap out of your opponent and do as much damage to him as possible.  

 

And since this thread is about Tiger, then of course he is a focus of this discussion.  And I don't include him in that group of underachievers.  He has proven his desire time and again, and he is still winning at a clip which laps the rest of the Tour, despite the lack of Major wins of late.  For some of the others you mentioned, the jury is still out.  Most haven't been around long enough to make a definitive assessment, however:  

 

DJ won once in 2013, and that was at the ToC, which is little more than an exhibition tournament.  Aside from that he had 5 top 10's.

 

Bradley and Simpson didn't win in 2013, and beteen them had 12 top 10's.  You chose pretty bad examples to support your contention.  Those are stats worthy of Scott Hoch.

First off you don't watch boxing Floyd doesn't get hit. If you don't have respect for boxing somethings wrong with you.  So if a guy doesn't win in a given year hes someone that settles for top 10's? So if Phil doesnt win next year he will have lost the drive to win?  People don't get to that level by settling I don't know how much easier to put it. Here Ill try  ITS NOT ALL ABOUT $$$$$$$$$.  I don't know you or what you do for a living but if you have a job its for money. A career on the other hand is something different.  You dont choose a career based on salary its something you love.  Being a professional golfer is a career.  No one would, has, or could make it on tour if golf was their job. 

 

You can believe what you like, but that doesn't make it true.  Tell me then what happens to the guys like Kim and Yang, and dozens of others over the last 20 years who come up with the credentials and game and hype, have one or two great years, then vanish into the relative mediocrity of middle or bottom half of the money list.  Did they suddenly lose the talent that brought them into the spotlight in the first place?  Or was it something else, something less tangible?  You don't have to lose much of an edge when the competition is waiting to pounce, and once lost, it's very hard to regain it.  If you don't believe that the top performers in every sport have that edge (and that the also-rans either lost it, or they never had it in the first place), then you need to talk to a sports psychologist and have him set you straight.  Every guy that makes it to the tour has the game to go very low, so what differentiates the consistent winners from the "journeymen".

 

In Jack's day those guys didn't have that luxury of a safety net.  If they lost the edge and stopped making top 10 finishes, they ended up in a job as a club pro because you HAD to perform consistently well to stay on Tour. 

 

And last. Sorry to step on anyone's toes, but I consider boxing to be barbaric.

post #3918 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

You can believe what you like, but that doesn't make it true.

Bingo.  (This goes for you too though.) :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Tell me then what happens to the guys like Kim and Yang, and dozens of others over the last 20 years who come up with the credentials and game and hype, have one or two great years, then vanish into the relative mediocrity of middle or bottom half of the money list.  Did they suddenly lose the talent that brought them into the spotlight in the first place?  Or was it something else, something less tangible?

Yes, it was something else, but no it wasn't at all less tangible.  There are MORE good golfers out there now!  More good golfers means, logically, it's harder for all of them to stay at the top.  There is nothing mythical or intangible about it.

post #3919 of 4445

 

 

 

 

Someone wrote, "It's (a player's relevancy in the Majors) is not the gold standard it wasn't until Jack decided it was." 
 
Jack "decided" no such thing. By Tiger's own admission, that is his standard, too; that is why he and so many others (most of the prominent, ranked players) build their seasons around the Majors.   

 

Sorry; that is THE standard. That is why Tiger is currently no. 2 of all time and he could be no. 1, if he meets that standard. 

post #3920 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

You can believe what you like, but that doesn't make it true.

Bingo.  (This goes for you too though.) :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Tell me then what happens to the guys like Kim and Yang, and dozens of others over the last 20 years who come up with the credentials and game and hype, have one or two great years, then vanish into the relative mediocrity of middle or bottom half of the money list.  Did they suddenly lose the talent that brought them into the spotlight in the first place?  Or was it something else, something less tangible?

Yes, it was something else, but no it wasn't at all less tangible.  There are MORE good golfers out there now!  More good golfers means, logically, it's harder for all of them to stay at the top.  There is nothing mythical or intangible about it.

 

I'm not talking about the rank and file who come up the usual way through college and Q-school and turn out to be pretty good players, if not stars.  It's the one's who DO come out as stars, with all of the hype and hopes, then fade when the reality of being a tour star becomes more than they expected it to be.  Some few have made it for several years before the weight bears them down, like Duval.  Most don't crash as hard as he did, but many don't have as much success before the crash either.  Spieth is on my watch list now, to see if he can survive the onslaught.  

 

I usually pull for these guys, and maybe that's what brings them down.  I never have been very good at picking winners.

 

The point I'm making is that it takes something special to keep it up year after year (like Tiger and Phil have done, and Jack and Tom Watson did), once you have made enough to be comfortable for life and the pressures of Tour life start to get to you.

post #3921 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

I'm not talking about the rank and file who come up the usual way through college and Q-school and turn out to be pretty good players, if not stars.  It's the one's who DO come out as stars, with all of the hype and hopes, then fade when the reality of being a tour star becomes more than they expected it to be.  Some few have made it for several years before the weight bears them down, like Duval.  Most don't crash as hard as he did, but many don't have as much success before the crash either.  Spieth is on my watch list now, to see if he can survive the onslaught.

 

I usually pull for these guys, and maybe that's what brings them down.  I never have been very good at picking winners.

 

The point I'm making is that it takes something special to keep it up year after year (like Tiger and Phil have done, and Jack and Tom Watson did), once you have made enough to be comfortable for life and the pressures of Tour life start to get to you.

OK, I see your point.  But how does this relate to this thread?  Who are the equivalent guys from Jack's era that make his competition inherently better?  And after we hear those names, can't we still say that part of what kept them there is the smaller pool of other players trying to come up and knock them down a peg?

post #3922 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

I'm not talking about the rank and file who come up the usual way through college and Q-school and turn out to be pretty good players, if not stars.  It's the one's who DO come out as stars, with all of the hype and hopes, then fade when the reality of being a tour star becomes more than they expected it to be.  Some few have made it for several years before the weight bears them down, like Duval.  Most don't crash as hard as he did, but many don't have as much success before the crash either.  Spieth is on my watch list now, to see if he can survive the onslaught.

 

I usually pull for these guys, and maybe that's what brings them down.  I never have been very good at picking winners.

 

The point I'm making is that it takes something special to keep it up year after year (like Tiger and Phil have done, and Jack and Tom Watson did), once you have made enough to be comfortable for life and the pressures of Tour life start to get to you.

Sorry but I disagree.  Guys that put in the time and effort to actually make it on the Tour have a level of dedication and competitive spirit that most of us will never know.  They didn't bust their butt until all hours of the night in H.S., college and Q-School to make it at the pro level so they could make a few million and take their foot off the gas because they had made enough money.  Maybe a few got lost in the money, got involved in recreational drugs and alcohol like Daley but I'd think they are a small minority.

 

Guys like Tiger, Phil and Jack are the elite athletes of their sport.  As good as all the other pro's are, they are just a little bit better most days.  The rest of the field hopes to have their best days at times when those guys have an off day so they have a chance to win.

 

Other guys get to the pro level, maybe win a little bit but realize the competition is so great that they need to adjust something in their swing or putting in order to get to the next level.  I read an interview with Luke Donald who cited that as the reason for his struggles this year.  As good as he was, he felt he needed to make some adjustments to get better and so far they haven't paid off.  Tiger has messed with his swing at least 3 times, Hogan had done it as well.  Sometimes the results from the changes are positive in other cases they can cause a player to fall in the rankings.

post #3923 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by metrybill View Post
 

 

 

 

 

Sorry; that is THE standard. That is why Tiger is currently no. 2 of all time and he could be no. 1, if he meets that standard. 

 

No it's not.

 


 

I always like arguments like this. It's so much easier just saying "This is a fact" even though it's the farthest thing from it.

 

Look, metrybill, YOU might think, in YOUR opinion, that "majors are THE standard," but others have their own standards.

post #3924 of 4445
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

No it's not.

I always like arguments like this. It's so much easier just saying "This is a fact" even though it's the farthest thing from it.

Look, metrybill, YOU might think, in YOUR opinion, that "majors are THE standard," but others have their own standards.

Look, iacas, ill agree there are other possible metrics. But majors is the most commonly cited metric. It's what the folks on TV who are paid to talk about golf 60 hours per week talk about more than any other measure. It's what most casual golf fans know. It's what Tiger admits that he measures his legacy against.

Majors may not be the only measure of greatness, but they're hugely important.
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