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 221

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

 
  • 69% (1634)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (717)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2351 Total Votes  
post #3961 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

It goes to somewhat dispute the "depth of competition" Tiger has faced in his career, one of the key items you guys keep throwing in our faces.  Chalmers wouldn't even have kept his card in Jack's era.  He'd be nothing more than a footnote on the tour records and a club pro somewhere back in Australia.  

 

 

Show me where I questioned anyone's work ethic.  All I said is that he has been on Tour for 18 years with a lot of money earned, but no real success outside of the money.  He may be working his ass off for all I know, but that doesn't mean that he is isn't quite satisfied with where he is at at this point in his life.  It doesn't mean that he hasn't subconsciously thrown in the towel and is now just coasting to the Champions Tour.  He wouldn't be the first to do that after hitting age 40.

I wasn't saying you questioned his work ethic I was simply asking you your opinion.  In my opinion just being on tour 18 years is a testament to how hard he's worked.  Do you think football players, basketball players, baseball players, ect.... are the same or worse than the were in the 60's or 70's?

post #3962 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Brandon makes a good counter-argument below that I agree with.  But I'd like to go a different route, and say that your argument is precisely why I think that "field strength" isn't a good metric.  Because how could you possibly know if Bolt slowed down or not?  You can't.  He won, and that is all that mattered.  Same is true in golf.  If Tiger wins 15 majors by an average of 3 shots, and Jack wins 19 by an average of 2 shots, does that mean anything at all (other than Jack has won 4 more).  No, of course not.  It could just as easily be argued that Jack had "tougher" competition, or perhaps Tiger "slowed down" because he didn't need to press.  There is no way to know.

 

Competition is not really measurable, but wins are.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

It goes to somewhat dispute the "depth of competition" Tiger has faced in his career, one of the key items you guys keep throwing in our faces.  Chalmers wouldn't even have kept his card in Jack's era.  He'd be nothing more than a footnote on the tour records and a club pro somewhere back in Australia.

For the record, as you can see by my older post above, I'm not actually one of the guys throwing that in your face.  I don't count field strength as that important a measurement in deciding between Jack and Tiger.

 

However, I do agree with all of the guys who say that the probability points to the fact that today's fields are stronger.  More people interested in the game, more access to instruction, more access to courses, training, etc, etc.

 

Now, as far as your Chalmers argument, there are two big problems that I see.  One is that it's wildly speculative to postulate, just based on the fact that he's somewhat mediocre now, that Greg Chalmers would not have been able to keep his card in Jack's era.  How do you draw that conclusion?  Second, even if you were right (and I think strongly that you are not, but just for arguments sake), does that matter much?  Does he really qualify as one of Tigers main competitors for majors?

post #3963 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Brandon makes a good counter-argument below that I agree with.  But I'd like to go a different route, and say that your argument is precisely why I think that "field strength" isn't a good metric.  Because how could you possibly know if Bolt slowed down or not?  You can't.  He won, and that is all that mattered.  Same is true in golf.  If Tiger wins 15 majors by an average of 3 shots, and Jack wins 19 by an average of 2 shots, does that mean anything at all (other than Jack has won 4 more).  No, of course not.  It could just as easily be argued that Jack had "tougher" competition, or perhaps Tiger "slowed down" because he didn't need to press.  There is no way to know.

 

Competition is not really measurable, but wins are.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

It goes to somewhat dispute the "depth of competition" Tiger has faced in his career, one of the key items you guys keep throwing in our faces.  Chalmers wouldn't even have kept his card in Jack's era.  He'd be nothing more than a footnote on the tour records and a club pro somewhere back in Australia.

For the record, as you can see by my older post above, I'm not actually one of the guys throwing that in your face.  I don't count field strength as that important a measurement in deciding between Jack and Tiger.

 

However, I do agree with all of the guys who say that the probability points to the fact that today's fields are stronger.  More people interested in the game, more access to instruction, more access to courses, training, etc, etc.

 

Now, as far as your Chalmers argument, there are two big problems that I see.  One is that it's wildly speculative to postulate, just based on the fact that he's somewhat mediocre now, that Greg Chalmers would not have been able to keep his card in Jack's era.  How do you draw that conclusion?  Second, even if you were right (and I think strongly that you are not, but just for arguments sake), does that matter much?  Does he really qualify as one of Tigers main competitors for majors?

 

If he was as productive in Jack's era as he has been in Tiger's he couldn't have kept his card.  No way.  Only the top 60 moved on the to the next season, the rest had to go thorough Q school again, assuming that they even made enough to afford it.  Even then a lot of those who did get a card for the season had to play in a qualifier every Monday for the chance to get a spot in the field.  Anything below a top 25 didn't make enough to meet expenses.  That's why you read the stories about the guys who lived in small motor homes or camper vans while out on the road.  They couldn't afford to stay in hotels and eat in restaurants.  The average factory worker was better off that they were.  That's the level that Chalmers would have been competing at if he played to the same relative level in Jack's day.

 

 Why do you think that there were so few foreign players in Jack's era and earlier playing on Tour?  They simply couldn't afford to gamble that the miracle might happen and they'd actually make a living over here.  More likely they'd get stuck in the US without the money to buy a ticket home.  That was the reality of a Tour pro back then.  It was pretty much at the end of Jack's career on the Tour that the money started to trickle down below the top 25 players in sufficient quantity to make playing on Tour worthwhile even if you had no illusions about climbing to the top.

post #3964 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

If he was as productive in Jack's era as he has been in Tiger's he couldn't have kept his card.  No way.  Only the top 60 moved on the to the next season, the rest had to go thorough Q school again, assuming that they even made enough to afford it.  Even then a lot of those who did get a card for the season had to play in a qualifier every Monday for the chance to get a spot in the field.  Anything below a top 25 didn't make enough to meet expenses.  That's why you read the stories about the guys who lived in small motor homes or camper vans while out on the road.  They couldn't afford to stay in hotels and eat in restaurants.  The average factory worker was better off that they were.  That's the level that Chalmers would have been competing at if he played to the same relative level in Jack's day.

 

 Why do you think that there were so few foreign players in Jack's era and earlier playing on Tour?  They simply couldn't afford to gamble that the miracle might happen and they'd actually make a living over here.  More likely they'd get stuck in the US without the money to buy a ticket home.  That was the reality of a Tour pro back then.  It was pretty much at the end of Jack's career on the Tour that the money started to trickle down below the top 25 players in sufficient quantity to make playing on Tour worthwhile even if you had no illusions about climbing to the top.

All of things you listed are points in favor of Tiger's strength of field, not Jack's.  You said it yourself ... there were so few foreign players playing on tour in Jack's day, not necessarily because they weren't good enough, but because of circumstances completely unrelated to golf.  That right there tells me that Jacks competition was, for lack of a better word, diluted.

 

If I was able to go back in time and hand out millions of dollars across the world to anybody who wanted to come to the US and take a crack at Jack and the tour, do you think that it's even a remote possibility that Jacks competition would be lessened?  Or, do you think that due, simply to the greater numbers, that his competition would actually get a bit, or perhaps a lot, tougher?

 

Well, that is exactly how it is now for Tiger.  Nowadays, because of the lucrative purses, foreign players don't have to fear getting stuck here.  Anybody with a putter and a dream can take a crack at Tiger if they have some skills.

post #3965 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

It goes to somewhat dispute the "depth of competition" Tiger has faced in his career, one of the key items you guys keep throwing in our faces.  Chalmers wouldn't even have kept his card in Jack's era.  He'd be nothing more than a footnote on the tour records and a club pro somewhere back in Australia.  

 

 

Show me where I questioned anyone's work ethic.  All I said is that he has been on Tour for 18 years with a lot of money earned, but no real success outside of the money.  He may be working his ass off for all I know, but that doesn't mean that he is isn't quite satisfied with where he is at at this point in his life.  It doesn't mean that he hasn't subconsciously thrown in the towel and is now just coasting to the Champions Tour.  He wouldn't be the first to do that after hitting age 40.

 

In Jack's era he never would have even gotten a chance to be on tour.  How many aussies do you think were playing the tour back then?

post #3966 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

If he was as productive in Jack's era as he has been in Tiger's he couldn't have kept his card.  No way.  Only the top 60 moved on the to the next season, the rest had to go thorough Q school again, assuming that they even made enough to afford it.  Even then a lot of those who did get a card for the season had to play in a qualifier every Monday for the chance to get a spot in the field.  Anything below a top 25 didn't make enough to meet expenses.  That's why you read the stories about the guys who lived in small motor homes or camper vans while out on the road.  They couldn't afford to stay in hotels and eat in restaurants.  The average factory worker was better off that they were.  That's the level that Chalmers would have been competing at if he played to the same relative level in Jack's day.

 

 Why do you think that there were so few foreign players in Jack's era and earlier playing on Tour?  They simply couldn't afford to gamble that the miracle might happen and they'd actually make a living over here.  More likely they'd get stuck in the US without the money to buy a ticket home.  That was the reality of a Tour pro back then.  It was pretty much at the end of Jack's career on the Tour that the money started to trickle down below the top 25 players in sufficient quantity to make playing on Tour worthwhile even if you had no illusions about climbing to the top.

All of things you listed are points in favor of Tiger's strength of field, not Jack's.  You said it yourself ... there were so few foreign players playing on tour in Jack's day, not necessarily because they weren't good enough, but because of circumstances completely unrelated to golf.  That right there tells me that Jacks competition was, for lack of a better word, diluted.

 

If I was able to go back in time and hand out millions of dollars across the world to anybody who wanted to come to the US and take a crack at Jack and the tour, do you think that it's even a remote possibility that Jacks competition would be lessened?  Or, do you think that due, simply to the greater numbers, that his competition would actually get a bit, or perhaps a lot, tougher?

 

Well, that is exactly how it is now for Tiger.  Nowadays, because of the lucrative purses, foreign players don't have to fear getting stuck here.  Anybody with a putter and a dream can take a crack at Tiger if they have some skills.

 

I still think that there was a desire factor that is quite different from today.  The guy who stayed out despite the difficulties really, really had to be self motivated beyond the norm.  I can't say what sort of a factor that might have been, but in my opinion, hunger can be a driving force which may be lost when the hunger is satisfied. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

It goes to somewhat dispute the "depth of competition" Tiger has faced in his career, one of the key items you guys keep throwing in our faces.  Chalmers wouldn't even have kept his card in Jack's era.  He'd be nothing more than a footnote on the tour records and a club pro somewhere back in Australia.  

 

 

Show me where I questioned anyone's work ethic.  All I said is that he has been on Tour for 18 years with a lot of money earned, but no real success outside of the money.  He may be working his ass off for all I know, but that doesn't mean that he is isn't quite satisfied with where he is at at this point in his life.  It doesn't mean that he hasn't subconsciously thrown in the towel and is now just coasting to the Champions Tour.  He wouldn't be the first to do that after hitting age 40.

 

In Jack's era he never would have even gotten a chance to be on tour.  How many aussies do you think were playing the tour back then?

 

If you had read everything you would have seen that I already made that point myself.

post #3967 of 4678
Greg Chalmers probably would have won ten times on the TOur if he was playing in Jacks' day-Give me a break Fourputt. Theres a lot to be said for nostalgia of the good ol days but youve gone plain cuckoo. Work ethic and Determination? I think hes doing pretty well to continually beat off the tens of thousands of golfers trying to get onto the pga tour-Hell I played in PGA TOur events as late as the early 80s and Ive got 14 year olds who are better now than I was then.
post #3968 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

If he was as productive in Jack's era as he has been in Tiger's he couldn't have kept his card.  No way.  Only the top 60 moved on the to the next season, the rest had to go thorough Q school again, assuming that they even made enough to afford it. 

 

The counterpoint to this, of course, would be that Chalmers likely would have been in the top 60 in Jack's day.  You're operating under the assumption that Jack's competition is better, therefore people in their respective positions in today's top 100 would be at the same position or lower in Jack's day.  

post #3969 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

If he was as productive in Jack's era as he has been in Tiger's he couldn't have kept his card.  No way.  Only the top 60 moved on the to the next season, the rest had to go thorough Q school again, assuming that they even made enough to afford it. 

 

The counterpoint to this, of course, would be that Chalmers likely would have been in the top 60 in Jack's day.  You're operating under the assumption that Jack's competition is better, therefore people in their respective positions in today's top 100 would be at the same position or lower in Jack's day.  

 

I should have said "a player with the equivalent production in Jack's era."  And I'm not even going to try to compare Chalmers to the #100 player in 1975.  It's silly enough trying to make impossible comparisons between Tiger and Jack.

 

If we are transplanting players through time now, lets move Tiger back head to head with Jack from 1960 on.  Both would be so closely matched that neither would have accomplished what they did separately.  At least until Tiger started to have health issues.  Jack really didn't have any such problems until he was on the Senior Tour and his hips went bad.  But he would have had at least 10 more productive years after Tiger blew out his knee.  And back then, the surgery was more invasive and less successful than it is today.  Who knows where Tiger might have ended up?  Or Jack?

post #3970 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

I still think that there was a desire factor that is quite different from today.  The guy who stayed out despite the difficulties really, really had to be self motivated beyond the norm.  I can't say what sort of a factor that might have been, but in my opinion, hunger can be a driving force which may be lost when the hunger is satisfied.

 

 

If you had read everything you would have seen that I already made that point myself.

It's numbers, the number of guys exposed to golf and that could even consider it a career option were a tiny fraction of what it is today.  How many colleges have golf teams today that didn't in Jack's early days.  How many international players are now competing that Jack never had to deal with.  Overall it's much harder just due to the sheer numbers of competitors to get a pro card today, no less keep it.

 

You're generalizing your perception of the youth today compared to Jack's time, but in terms of athletics and professional sports the chances of making it to the professional levels are significantly less today than in Jack's era. 

post #3971 of 4678
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.

What was that about Simpson not winning? Yeah it looks like Scott Hoch huh.

post #3972 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post
 

What was that about Simpson not winning? Yeah it looks like Scott Hoch huh.

 

I've no idea what you are talking about.

post #3973 of 4678
Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post
 

What was that about Simpson not winning? Yeah it looks like Scott Hoch huh

.

 

Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

I've no idea what you are talking about.

 

I suggest you look at the Monday sports page of your newspaper, and check out the "golf" section.

post #3974 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 
Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post
 

What was that about Simpson not winning? Yeah it looks like Scott Hoch huh

.

 

Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

I've no idea what you are talking about.

 

I suggest you look at the Monday sports page of your newspaper, and check out the "golf" section.

 

You can't just tell me?  I have no newspapers down here except in Nassau, and they don't get to the Out Islands.  Even if they did, I doubt that they would care about these mop-up tournaments anyway.   

 

That isn't 2013 season anyway if he won this weekend, so my previous statement still stands as of when it was written.  

 

This is nothing more than a "promoted" second season tourney anyway, a way for Finchem to keep the Tour in the spotlight (dim though it may be), and a way for the also-rans to have a chance to make a paycheck.  I can't imagine wasting several hours watching it, but then I don't watch that much golf on TV anymore anyway.  It only really gets my interest when the big sticks are playing.

post #3975 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

This is nothing more than a "promoted" second season tourney anyway, a way for Finchem to keep the Tour in the spotlight (dim though it may be), and a way for the also-rans to have a chance to make a paycheck.  I can't imagine wasting several hours watching it, but then I don't watch that much golf on TV anymore anyway.  It only really gets my interest when the big sticks are playing.

 

It's a bit more than that these days (starting this year). There were some decent names playing. They're earning FedExCup points, etc.

post #3976 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

This is nothing more than a "promoted" second season tourney anyway, a way for Finchem to keep the Tour in the spotlight (dim though it may be), and a way for the also-rans to have a chance to make a paycheck.  I can't imagine wasting several hours watching it, but then I don't watch that much golf on TV anymore anyway.  It only really gets my interest when the big sticks are playing.

 

It's a bit more than that these days (starting this year). There were some decent names playing. They're earning FedExCup points, etc.

 

I realize that.  I just don't see it as relevant to what I posted after the 2013 season was in the books.  My statement about wins through 2013 was accurate, and even if Simpson wins 15 of these "new" tournaments, it shouldn't get him consideration for the HoF.  They simply aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.

 

This is the time of year when the real big guys are getting in their sponsor's requirements, and otherwise taking time off to be with their families, and that's as it should be.  It seems to me as if Finchem is trying to take that opportunity for a break away from them just to make the Tour coffers even fatter than they already are.  Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.

post #3977 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

 

I suggest you look at the Monday sports page of your newspaper, and check out the "golf" section.

LOL ... what are you, 80?? :-P

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

You can't just tell me?

I didn't understand his clipped writings at first either, but Phan cleared it up.  He's referring to Simpson winning last weekend.  And Erik is right ... it's quite a bit different than previous years "silly seasons" because there are a lot more names playing and they are earning 2014 Fedex Cup points.

post #3978 of 4678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

LOL ... what are you, 80?? :-P

 

I didn't understand his clipped writings at first either, but Phan cleared it up.  He's referring to Simpson winning last weekend.  And Erik is right ... it's quite a bit different than previous years "silly seasons" because there are a lot more names playing and they are earning 2014 Fedex Cup points.

Which kind of confirms 4-putts point that he didn't win any 2013 events.

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