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 240

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

 
  • 69% (1634)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (719)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2353 Total Votes  
post #4303 of 4685
Yup, Jack is definitely more of a family man than Tiger. Tiger's priorities are golf > sex > money > family. b2_tongue.gif
post #4304 of 4685

I am tired of this argument that tiger is better than jack things are so different now than what they were then its impossible to even compare what  it would be like. On any given day one could beat the other  but it would be impossible to tell unless you gave them roughly the same technology and circumstances. There is no doubt the golfers of today have better practice facilities better clubs better lives better nutrition better knowledge better everything.

 

Let me add in ben Hogan to make my point clearer one could make the case ben Hogan was better than both of them think about it.

 

1) The Masters didn't start until 1934, four years after Hogan turned professional.   
2) The British Open was most often played the same week as the PGA Championship.  It was rare for players to compete in both in the same year until the 1960's.  This may have prevented Hogan from winning the Grand Slam in 1953.
3)  Because of ocean travel, the British Open was difficult to get to and was a financial burden for Hogan, who was basically poor.
4) Hogan missed 3 years of majors due to World War 2.
5) After his car accident in 1949, he played a very limited schedule.  The only majors he played in during the '50's were the Masters and U.S. Open, except in 1953, when he played in his one and only British Open at Carnoustie. He won by 4 strokes.(and while we are on that topic think of the advancements in the medical field for Woods vs Hogan)

 

I will always argue that the golfers of long ago were better than the golfers of today because of what they did with what they had verses what is available today. with the evolution of technology it is logical that scores would get better but as technology gets better the skill of the player gets worse. 

 

A thread was just started stating competition is tougher today. I would argue that the competition is tighter today but not tougher today sure the have better scores but the reason for that is that with the advancement of technology the skill multiplayer has lessened and the gap between a good golfer versus a great golfer will continue to get smaller until there is a new breakthrough in the game and or talent. In other words just because a race is tight doesn't mean the racers are more talented than another group.    

 

if we had a prime hogan or jack today they would wipe the floor with the competition today or if the golfers of today were put back in that time they would be completely lost.

post #4305 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by americanfighter View Post
 

I will always argue that the golfers of long ago were better than the golfers of today because of what they did with what they had verses what is available today. with the evolution of technology it is logical that scores would get better but as technology gets better the skill of the player gets worse. 

 

You might have a point… if only the courses had stayed the same. If courses got more difficult at a rate faster than the "equipment" improved the scores of top golfers, you'd be able to make such a determination.

 

Give Jack his old equipment and put him on a modern PGA Tour course, and he'd average well above what he averaged in his day. Give Tiger his modern equipment and put him on Jack's courses, and he might never lose.

 

You can "always argue" it but if I were you I'd adapt and change it up a bit given the glaring hole your argument has: courses aren't the same.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by americanfighter View Post
 

if we had a prime hogan or jack today they would wipe the floor with the competition today or if the golfers of today were put back in that time they would be completely lost.

 

You get to have that opinion. Just as others will point out that Ben Hogan competed against even weaker fields than Jack Nicklaus… :)

 

Not just "more level" fields - weaker fields.

post #4306 of 4685

It's disgusting that this is brought up at all. It shows just how ignorant american golfers are. There (easily) 3 american golfers that are greater given what they did with their careers.

 

People are utterly centric in there thinking. They are so desperate to claim the greatest in their life time that some what vote for a Mike Reed! Sorry Mike... you were an excellent player during your time on tour but not the caliber of player of Nicklaus or Woods.

 

 

 

Ben Hogan, Sam Snead 

 

and

 

Bobby Jones.

 

 

This fool hardy reverence directed at Nicklaus or Woods is pathetic.

post #4307 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by teechopper View Post
 

It's disgusting that this is brought up at all. It shows just how ignorant american golfers are. There (easily) 3 american golfers that are greater given what they did with their careers.

 

People are utterly centric in there thinking. They are so desperate to claim the greatest in their life time that some what vote for a Mike Reed! Sorry Mike... you were an excellent player during your time on tour but not the caliber of player of Nicklaus or Woods.

 

 

 

Ben Hogan, Sam Snead 

 

and

 

Bobby Jones.

 

 

This fool hardy reverence directed at Nicklaus or Woods is pathetic.

 

Think you need to check out this thread

 

 Strength of Field in Jack's Day and Tiger's Day 

post #4308 of 4685

That you're an idiot

post #4309 of 4685
Jesus theres no possible way to compare the two jack did his thing in his time. Tigers doing his now. Unless you have a time machine no one will ever know. Although tiger himself wont think hes better till he has more masters. Its all opinions although I'd sure love to watch it. My guess only having seen tiger play and only film of jack in their prime id take tiger by a stroke maybe two.
post #4310 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by teechopper View Post
 

It's disgusting that this is brought up at all. It shows just how ignorant american golfers are. 

 

This fool hardy reverence directed at Nicklaus or Woods is pathetic.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teechopper View Post
 

That you're an idiot

 

I think you're going to work out quite well here.  You seem to have such a welcoming soul.

post #4311 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post



I think you're going to work out quite well here.  You seem to have such a welcoming soul.
Yes, and he's quite the little digger too. My stars! That hole he's digging for himself must be a good four feet deep already.

If his shovel starts to get dull I'll gladly lend him one so he can finish the job.
post #4312 of 4685

Jack is too much of a Gentleman, an Ambassador of the game, second only to Palmer, to say what he really thinks about Tiger and his "game."  

 

At least some of this discussion has an element of perception of the person, not just the golfer.  Fair or not, it is there.  No one is going to ever confuse Tiger with a Gentleman golfer.  I truly hope I am wrong. I think Tiger is popular largely, and well deservedly so, for his game. I don't think there are a lot of people who have respect for Tiger the Man, a Gentleman, someone whose life is to be admired and emulated. His foundation and First Tee programs are absolutely fabulous; but, I believe, are largely public relations based.  I doubt Tiger's sincerity in all things unless it has to do with what is in his best interests.  His persona is largely based on Nike promotions and his obvious draw for crowds, not unlike John Daly's to a far lesser degree.  Tiger IS a prodigious talent.He has grown the game, esp. to the masses, a very, very, very good thing. No doubt. 

 

The Game, the PGA, the Memorial and Golf need Tiger, the draw. 

 

Does anyone look forward to the day when Tiger might be an announcer?  I do not; but some, perhaps many, might. 

 

Perception:  I will admit that I am a great, great, re-enforced over decades, admirer of Jack, the Golfer-Gentleman.  I will also admit that I have great admiration of Tiger, the Golfer (which is genuine), but which is somewhat tainted by my disdain for Tiger the man.  I would like to meet and to play with Tiger the Golfer once, but only once.  I could meet and play with Nicklaus (met him), Palmer (met and caddied for him in a charity event), Watson (followed him), Player (followed him), Trevino, Casper , Stricker, Furyk, Strange, Bubba, Rory, Irwin, Floyd, Hogan (my lifetime), Peter Thomson (my lifetime), Azinger, Venturi (my lifetime), Johnny Miller, Els, Toms, Vijay (met him, not so much), Olazabal, Ballesteros, Mickelson, Harrington, Zoeller, Faldo, Crenshaw, Kite,  .. anytime and every time I was privileged to do so. (Sorry if I left someone out).  Greg Norman, Couples, Daly (met all three, not as nice off camera as you might think) might also fit into my one time only persons. Tiger, the man, does absolutely nothing for me. 

 

Can hardly wait for any responses. 

 

Mark my words: Jordan Spieth might become the next Palmer/Nicklaus/Watson draw. He has got low key charisma with talent and Gentleman-persona. He might be THE next Gentleman-Golfer. 

 

btw, he is Jesuit-trained. He is well-educated beyond his H.S. education and 1 yr. at Texas, probably intellectual, probably analytical, disciplined, driven, and smart. 

post #4313 of 4685

Perception is a funny thing.  I have a friend in Australia who met and got an autograph from Tiger.  He said he was delightful, approachable and very much the gentleman.  Norman, on the other had, was rude, arrogant and full of himself.  This friend was a big fan of Norman and was highly disappointed.

 

You don't like Tiger, for the philandering, which is understandable.  But you admire many other players who did the same thing, but did not have TMZ expose them.  This is the paradox that confuses me.  I think Jack and Tiger are terrific golfers.  I don't know either personally, and I will not let that affect my perception of them as golfers.

post #4314 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

Perception is a funny thing.  I have a friend in Australia who met and got an autograph from Tiger.  He said he was delightful, approachable and very much the gentleman.  Norman, on the other had, was rude, arrogant and full of himself.  This friend was a big fan of Norman and was highly disappointed.

 

You don't like Tiger, for the philandering, which is understandable.  But you admire many other players who did the same thing, but did not have TMZ expose them.  This is the paradox that confuses me.  I think Jack and Tiger are terrific golfers.  I don't know either personally, and I will not let that affect my perception of them as golfers.

^^^ Yep. There it is.

 

I put very, very little stock in opinions other people form and especially if those opinions are formed based on a 20 second meeting under who knows what circumstances.

post #4315 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by metrybill
 
Tiger IS a prodigious talent. He has grown the game, esp. to the masses, a very, very, very good thing. No doubt. 

 

PGA-sponsored market research project and was discussed at a US Golf Manufacturers Council meeting on August 10, 2011. “There are about 24M golfers in the US.  The American market lost 4.5 million golfers” - American Golf Growth: Just the Facts, Jack

 

"From the mid 1980s to the turn of the century, the number of golfers grew by about 50 percent -- from 20 million to 30 million golfers," the National Golf Foundation said in a report entitled Golf Participation in America, 2010-2020. "But since the year 2000," the report continued, "the number of golfers plateaued and has been slowly declining, raising concerns about the future."  Golf Digest

post #4316 of 4685

As my college professor put it:

 

"The simplest way to monitor athletic progress is the 100 meter sprint and until that record is maxed out and has stood for one or two generations then and only then will all other athletic comparisons across more than one generation be viable. This is because the rate at which athletes became bigger, faster, and stronger will begin to stagnate."

 

The fact is no one debates whether or not Carl Lewis was faster than Usain Bolt because we know the answer yet we will then try to argue that Jack is better than Tiger or Jordan is better than Lebron or that Jim Brown is better than Adrian Peterson and these comparisons are utterly absurd because the game and the athlete has absolutely evolved for the better. The next argument that is raised is how bad such and such wanted it back then and this is also not viable when there is a physical advantage. No matter how bad Carl Lewis, or Jim Brown, or Michael Jordan wanted it, if you transplanted them from their time to today's game they would not be dominate. They would be good, but they would be closer to the median athlete of today.  Now if you transferred them to today with today's training, nutrition and athletic progression then they are exactly the person you are trying to compare them to.

 

Tiger is a bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic version of Jack, as is Usain, Lebron, and Adrian Peterson. Golf is getting more and more athletic as we speak and wait until guys that used to pick basketball start picking golf and the sport is flooded with a bunch of guys built like Quiros or Dustin Johnson. Then we will one day see a golfer that will dominate game at a pace even greater than Tiger in his prime did and take the game by storm. He may not even be born yet but he's coming.

post #4317 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Righty to Lefty View Post
 

As my college professor put it:

 

"The simplest way to monitor athletic progress is the 100 meter sprint and until that record is maxed out and has stood for one or two generations then and only then will all other athletic comparisons across more than one generation be viable. This is because the rate at which athletes became bigger, faster, and stronger will begin to stagnate."

 

The fact is no one debates whether or not Carl Lewis was faster than Usain Bolt because we know the answer yet we will then try to argue that Jack is better than Tiger or Jordan is better than Lebron or that Jim Brown is better than Adrian Peterson and these comparisons are utterly absurd because the game and the athlete has absolutely evolved for the better. The next argument that is raised is how bad such and such wanted it back then and this is also not viable when there is a physical advantage. No matter how bad Carl Lewis, or Jim Brown, or Michael Jordan wanted it, if you transplanted them from their time to today's game they would not be dominate. They would be good, but they would be closer to the median athlete of today.  Now if you transferred them to today with today's training, nutrition and athletic progression then they are exactly the person you are trying to compare them to.

 

Tiger is a bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic version of Jack, as is Usain, Lebron, and Adrian Peterson. Golf is getting more and more athletic as we speak and wait until guys that used to pick basketball start picking golf and the sport is flooded with a bunch of guys built like Quiros or Dustin Johnson. Then we will one day see a golfer that will dominate game at a pace even greater than Tiger in his prime did and take the game by storm. He may not even be born yet but he's coming.

 

Although I agree that the evolution of sport and the human body will produce a golfer some day genetically superior to those of the modern day, even Tiger Woods, I don't think we will ever see a period of time where a single golfer so dominated the sport like Tiger did from 1999-2008. The parity just seems too great. I wonder if 50 wins in a lifetime is even approachable by but a handful of golfers in the next 50 years. Of golfers under age 35, does anyone even have 20 PGA Tour wins? I can't think of any. Adam Scott has 13 if I remember correctly. I don't know that I'd bet that anyone under 35 right now other than Jordan Spieth or Rory McIlroy gets to 50 lifetime wins, with 6-8 majors. I might even recant on that bet in 5 years if they each haven't won at least ten events and a couple of majors. Golf seems different than other sports in that it blends pure power, finesse, concentration, and planning. Just because you're 6'5, 210 and can hit a tee shot 325+ consistently doesn't mean you're going to win 13 majors and 60+ tour events in a 9-year period.

post #4318 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by olkev View Post
 

 

PGA-sponsored market research project and was discussed at a US Golf Manufacturers Council meeting on August 10, 2011. “There are about 24M golfers in the US.  The American market lost 4.5 million golfers” - American Golf Growth: Just the Facts, Jack

 

"From the mid 1980s to the turn of the century, the number of golfers grew by about 50 percent -- from 20 million to 30 million golfers," the National Golf Foundation said in a report entitled Golf Participation in America, 2010-2020. "But since the year 2000," the report continued, "the number of golfers plateaued and has been slowly declining, raising concerns about the future."  Golf Digest

I don't think that means Tiger's impact should be underestimated. Golf suffers from many more problems. Without Tiger that loss of 4.5 million may have been 6.5 million. I also think that even if he hasn't inspired more golfers to play the game, he has certainly increased viewership. Every gallery for the past 15 years has been larger when Tiger plays, and the TV ratings are almost always much higher when he's playing well.

post #4319 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by olkev View Post

PGA-sponsored market research project and was discussed at a US Golf Manufacturers Council meeting on August 10, 2011. “There are about 24M golfers in the US.  The American market lost 4.5 million golfers” - American Golf Growth: Just the Facts, Jack

"From the mid 1980s to the turn of the century, the number of golfers grew by about 50 percent -- from 20 million to 30 million golfers," the National Golf Foundation said in a report entitled Golf Participation in America, 2010-2020. "But since the year 2000," the report continued, "the number of golfers plateaued and has been slowly declining, raising concerns about the future."  Golf Digest

You've shown correlation, not causation.
post #4320 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post
 

I don't think that means Tiger's impact should be underestimated. Golf suffers from many more problems. Without Tiger that loss of 4.5 million may have been 6.5 million. I also think that even if he hasn't inspired more golfers to play the game, he has certainly increased viewership. Every gallery for the past 15 years has been larger when Tiger plays, and the TV ratings are almost always much higher when he's playing well.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


You've shown correlation, not causation.

 

Also keep in mind that golf participation is different from total golf consumption.  Part of what people talk about when discussing how Tiger "grew the game" is in TV ratings and event attendance.  I don't know how the study measured "golfers" in the US, but that definition probably limits it to people playing (or registered as players, or who "identify" as golfers), and not people driving other revenues that flow into the Tour's coffers.  

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