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 258

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 #4627 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


That's one of the big arguments I spent time on in my article. Is Walter Hagen the third best golfers of all time? I doubt it. But he'd got 11, behind only Jack and Tiger.


That's eleven modern majors. Let's not forget the five Western Opens that Hagen won in the time when that tournament had  status co-equal to the U.S. Open and Open Championship.

post #4628 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer View Post


That's eleven modern majors. Let's not forget the five Western Opens that Hagen won in the time when that tournament had  status co-equal to the U.S. Open and Open Championship.

I know. I made it pretty clear in the article that I'm well aware of the Western Open.

Quote:
To be fair, of course, Hagen didn’t get to play The Masters until five years after his last major win, and his many wins in other highly prestigious events (which I'll mention in the next section) get lost in the shuffle.

...

For years, both the Western Open and the North and South Open were highly prestigious, to the point where they might have been considered majors had the term existed in earnest. We don’t count Snead’s combined five wins at those events towards his total, nor would I argue that we should, but it speaks somewhat towards the arbitrary nature of the term “major championships.”
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Also, Tiger's got 3 Western Opens (5 if you count the BMW Championship, which is to what the Western Open was renamed) to Jack's 2. I, for one, think we should count them as majors! b2_tongue.gif
post #4629 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisP View Post
 

 

Numerous shots in the back is a lot different than having back surgery

Correct.  When I started really having back issues I tried various things.

 

  1. First was chiropractics, which seemed to only help as long as I continued to see the chiropractor weekly, but that became too expensive.
  2. The I went to an orthopedist, who referred my to a spinal pain specialist.
  3. Spinal Pain Specialist gave me a 3-shot series of steroid epidurals.  I did this series with the doctor 3 or 4 times over a period of 4 or 5 years.
  4. Different chiropractor, helped some, still not a cure.
  5. Went to spinal pain specialist again for shots, but since my pain was a little lower, he sent me to physical therapy instead.
  6. Physical therapy involved exercises, massages and acupressure-ish type stuff, lots of stretches.  Since physical therapy, I haven't had to get any treatment and it has been almost 3 full years ... KNOCK ON WOOD!!!

 

The main point of my story is this:  I asked my spinal doctor when he would recommend surgery and his answer was basically ... "never."  Surgery is a last, last, last resort, and he'd only recommend it if "you couldn't walk."

 

So a condition that would require numerous shots in the back CAN BE vastly different than a condition that requires surgery.

post #4630 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Correct.  When I started really having back issues I tried various things.

 

  1. First was chiropractics, which seemed to only help as long as I continued to see the chiropractor weekly, but that became too expensive.
  2. The I went to an orthopedist, who referred my to a spinal pain specialist.
  3. Spinal Pain Specialist gave me a 3-shot series of steroid epidurals.  I did this series with the doctor 3 or 4 times over a period of 4 or 5 years.
  4. Different chiropractor, helped some, still not a cure.
  5. Went to spinal pain specialist again for shots, but since my pain was a little lower, he sent me to physical therapy instead.
  6. Physical therapy involved exercises, massages and acupressure-ish type stuff, lots of stretches.  Since physical therapy, I haven't had to get any treatment and it has been almost 3 full years ... KNOCK ON WOOD!!!

 

The main point of my story is this:  I asked my spinal doctor when he would recommend surgery and his answer was basically ... "never."  Surgery is a last, last, last resort, and he'd only recommend it if "you couldn't walk."

 

So a condition that would require numerous shots in the back CAN BE vastly different than a condition that requires surgery.

 

 

I think a lot of golfers on the PGA take cortizone shots and pain shots for their back. Paul Azinger was quoted best a couple weeks ago when he said he's never met a golfer on the PGA Tour who "didn't" have back problems. The sport takes a toll on your back more than any other part of your body, and the harder you swing, the more it's going to hurt. And Tiger swings at it pretty hard.

 

This is a crucial point in the career of Tiger Woods....more crucial than the knee surgery and the personal struggles he faced years back. While I don't think this is going to end his career, this has the capability of truly ending his run as one of the best in the game. He may have to change his swing even more, change his schedule to practice and play less and be forced to take more power off his swing, which as we know is what made his swing so great. Tiger Woods without explosion is like Mariano Rivera without the cutter. It's going to diminish him. And in tying it into the thread and what I said earlier, this could hurt his argument that his "all-around" career was better than Jack's. The one thing Nicklaus has going for him is he won majors when he was young, middle-aged and old.

post #4631 of 4685

Revisiting this thread (among others)...

 

I know a while back, embedded somewhere in these 258 pages of posts, that I stated I was in the 18>14 club & thus Jack is the greatest. And sure, that is a defining measure of greatness, not just a 'factoid' which some poster tried to counter me on. I mean, it's not like freekin' greens in regulation or something. It's MAJOR wins. 

 

Having said all that, Tiger has done a number of things Jack never did:

 

- Won 4 Majors in a row

- Won the US Open by 15 shots

- Won The Masters by 9 shots

- Won 6 events in a row

 

Among others. And Tiger has now passed Jack on the wins list.

 

So I think I have to change my stance. 18>14 is too simplistic. If that's all it came down to then we don't really even need to debate it, do we? So I have to now give the nod to Tiger due to a dominance that Jack never quite reached. And since it's looking more like Tiger's career, from here out, is going to be compromised by injury & it abruptly changed for the worse in late 2009, his 14 compares quite favorable to Jack's 18, which was spread out over 25 years. Tiger did his 14 in 12 years. 

 

So it's Tiger, in my mind.

post #4632 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post
 

Revisiting this thread (among others)...

 

I know a while back, embedded somewhere in these 258 pages of posts, that I stated I was in the 18>14 club & thus Jack is the greatest. And sure, that is a defining measure of greatness, not just a 'factoid' which some poster tried to counter me on. I mean, it's not like freekin' greens in regulation or something. It's MAJOR wins. 

 

Having said all that, Tiger has done a number of things Jack never did:

 

- Won 4 Majors in a row

- Won the US Open by 15 shots

- Won The Masters by 9 shots

- Won 6 events in a row

 

Among others. And Tiger has now passed Jack on the wins list.

 

So I think I have to change my stance. 18>14 is too simplistic. If that's all it came down to then we don't really even need to debate it, do we? So I have to now give the nod to Tiger due to a dominance that Jack never quite reached. And since it's looking more like Tiger's career, from here out, is going to be compromised by injury & it abruptly changed for the worse in late 2009, his 14 compares quite favorable to Jack's 18, which was spread out over 25 years. Tiger did his 14 in 12 years. 

 

So it's Tiger, in my mind.

Actually he won the Masters by 12.  And while he did win 6 in a row ('99-'00) he also independently won 7 in a row ('06-'07).  But let's not quibble.  Welcome to this side.

post #4633 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

Actually he won the Masters by 12.  And while he did win 6 in a row ('99-'00) he also independently won 7 in a row ('06-'07).  But let's not quibble.  Welcome to this side.

 

Yes, let's not...since you corrections don't change the conclusion. Jack never won the Masters by 12 either. :-P 

post #4634 of 4685

Majors aren't everything in this discussion, but they count for something. Woods has now played in 72 major championships (through 2014 PGA). Here is his record compared to Nicklaus’s first 72:

 

Jack:
1st - 14
2nd - 15
3rd - 9
4-10 - 14

 

Tiger:
1st - 14
2nd - 6
3rd - 4
4-10 - 14

post #4635 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

The main point of my story is this:  I asked my spinal doctor when he would recommend surgery and his answer was basically ... "never."  Surgery is a last, last, last resort, and he'd only recommend it if "you couldn't walk."

Ask this doctor if he's ever herd of cauda equina syndrome.

post #4636 of 4685

If Tiger fails to win 4 more majors, he would be the first to say Jack was better.

.

FWIW: I think it's difficult to compare players from different era.

post #4637 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallMarker View Post

If Tiger fails to win 4 more majors, he would be the first to say Jack was better.

And… that's the politically correct thing to say.

He'd be skewered if he did what Jack did in re-shaping the criteria.
post #4638 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallMarker View Post
 

If Tiger fails to win 4 more majors, he would be the first to say Jack was better.

.

FWIW: I think it's difficult to compare players from different era.

 

And yet you just did.  It has always fascinated me that NOW people say how hard it is to compare players of different eras yet that argument never even seemed to arise when Jack, using self-proclaimed criteria, was almost universally acclaimed as the GOAT. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post


And… that's the politically correct thing to say.

He'd be skewered if he did what Jack did in re-shaping the criteria.

 

Exactly.  IF he reaches or exceeds 18 he can then do it if he chooses.  But if he tried to do it after failing to reach his objective, as Jack did when it became apparent he was not going to reach HIS goal of winning more events than Snead, he wuld be unmercifully skewered by the press.  Even though he would have a far better case than Jack ever did.

post #4639 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post


And… that's the politically correct thing to say.
 

 

Much like when Jack said Tiger would break his record. I mean, he even went on to say something to the like of, 'If I said he wouldn't how would that make me look?'

post #4640 of 4685

Ryder Cup records of Jack v. Tiger do not compare favorably for Tiger.  http://www.rydercup.com/usa/history/2014-ryder-cup-player-records 

 

Tiger's injuries have been largely self-inflicted, not always part of just living.  Over the top training, sometime Seal-type training. Ridiculous. 

 

If Tiger will follow Rory's golf-oriented-only training regimen, Tiger might have a shot at coming back.  

 

Here are some of Tiger's problems, in no particular order of importance, IMHO:

 

He is 39;

He has changed / altered his technique and swing at least 3 times, since 1997;

he has been injured, or injured himself, or been injured by someone else, several times;

he has had at least 5  teachers, ? from his boyhood, Ledbetter, Harmon, Haney, Foley, anyone else?;

He is no longer the longest player on the tour;

he has avoided (self-indulgence) courses that he doesn't like - cf. Nicklaus who played everywhere;

He has LOST HIS KNACK FOR SCORING from lack of play;

He has lost his advantage as the best short game player on Tour, or no worse than 2nd to Mickelson and several others;

His picadilos have taken off of the godlike list - he is just a joe;

He is no longer the clearly most fit person on tour;

He has and he will have for sometime to come an unsettled personal life;

He is no Hogan, Nicklaus, Watson, ...

 
  • Julius Boros: 1968 PGA Championship, 48 years, 4 months, 18 days
  • Jack Nicklaus: 1986 Masters, 46 years, 2 months, 23 days
  • Old Tom Morris: 1867 British Open, 46 years, 99 days
  • Jerry Barber: 1961 PGA Championship, 45 Years, 3 months, 6 days
  • Hale Irwin: 1990 U.S. Open, 45 years, 15 days old
  • Lee Trevino: 1984 PGA Championship, 44 years, 8 months, 18 days
  • Roberto de Vicenzo: 1967 British Open, 44 years, 93 days
  • Harry Vardon: 1914 British Open, 44 years, 41 days
  • Raymond Floyd: 1986 U.S. Open, 43 years, 9 months, 11 days
  • Ted Ray: 1920 U.S. Open, 43 years, 4 months, 16 days old

 

Only 33 of the last 410 major championships dating to the 1860
British Open has been won by a player in his 40s. Here’s a look
at the players, including the tournament and where it was
played. Check out how many have won after Nicklaus's 1986 win at the Masters:

AGE 48

Julius Boros, 1968 PGA Championship, Pecan Valley

AGE 46

Jack Nicklaus, 1986 Masters, Augusta National

Old Tom Morris, 1867 British Open, Prestwick

AGE 45

Hale Irwin, 1990 U.S. Open, Medinah

Jerry Barber, 1961 PGA Championship, Olympia Fields

AGE 44

Lee Trevino, 1984 PGA Championship, Shoal Creek

Robert De Vicenzo, 1967 British Open, Royal Liverpool

Harry Vardon, 1914 British Open, Prestwick

AGE 43

Ben Crenshaw, 1995 Masters, Augusta National

Raymond Floyd, 1986 U.S. Open, Shinnecock Hills

Julius Boros, 1963 U.S. Open, The Country Club

Ted Ray, 1920 U.S. Open, Inverness

Old Tom Morris, 1864 British Open, Prestwick

AGE 42

Payne Stewart, 1999 U.S. Open, Pinehurst No. 2

Tom Kite, 1992 U.S. Open, Pebble Beach

Gary Player, 1978 Masters, Augusta National 

Tommy Bolt, 1958 U.S. Open, Southern Hills

J.H. Taylor, 1913 British Open, Royal Liverpool

Willie Park Sr., 1875 British Open, Prestwick

AGE 41

Vijay Singh, 2004 PGA Championship, Whistling Straits

Mark O’Meara, 1998 British Open, Royal Birkdale

Mark O’Meara, 1998 Masters, Augusta National

Sam Snead, 1954 Masters, Augusta National

Henry Cotton, 1948 British Open, Muirfield

Harry Vardon, 1911 British Open, Royal St. George’s

Old Tom Morris, 1862 British Open, Prestwick

AGE 40

Jack Nicklaus, 1980 PGA Championship, Oak Hill

Jack Nicklaus, 1980 U.S. Open, Baltusrol

Ben Hogan, 1953 British Open, Carnoustie

Ben Hogan, 1953 U.S. Open, Oakmont

Ben Hogan, 1953 Masters, Augusta National

James Braid, 1910 British Open, St. Andrews

Old Tom Morris, 1861 British Open, Prestwick

What do you think?  Don't be shy.  It's OK to beat me up.  It is ok. Go for it. 

 

btw, Gary Player, arguably the most fit man over an extended period of time in the history of the Game, last won a PGA event at the age of 42-43.

 

Sorry, Tiger. IMHO, for the first time in your life, there will be  a field of competitors who will/may have a run at Hall of Fame Status, other than Mickelson (a lock). Rory et al.

 

Honestly, what players in their prime, Majors winners, has Tiger played against  who are currently locks for the golf Hall of Fame? 

post #4641 of 4685

Nicklaus had only one teacher: Jack Grout. Never really changed his swing, at least until he became a Seniors/Champions player, when he became a marginally bit flatter. 

post #4642 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by metrybill View Post
 

Ryder Cup records of Jack v. Tiger do not compare favorably for Tiger.

 

Pretty easy to rack up a good record when you're playing against poorer players.

 

Let's look at 1971 (a random year I picked):

He lost to some dude named "Huggett" and Jacklin.

He beat two dudes named Bembridge and Butler.

He beat the stalwarts Townsend and Bannerman twice. Who? Yeah. Exactly.

He beat Peter Townsend in singles.

 

His career highlights include two T13 finishes in the British Open and a MC in his one U.S. Open appearance.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by metrybill View Post
 

If Tiger will follow Rory's golf-oriented-only training regimen, Tiger might have a shot at coming back.

 

You don't know that Rory's career might not be over in three years with a major injury. Regardles, this isn't related to the discussion here.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by metrybill View Post
 

He is no Hogan, Nicklaus, Watson, ...

 

You're right. Many believe his career is already better than any of those guys. :P

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by metrybill View Post
 

Nicklaus had only one teacher: Jack Grout. Never really changed his swing, at least until he became a Seniors/Champions player, when he became a marginally bit flatter. 

 

What does that have to do with anything?

post #4643 of 4685

And we're back at the beginning of the circle. @iacas, you're a better man than I because if I had to repeat myself as much as you have to (in this thread, especially), I would throw myself off a building. 

 

@metrybill, there is literally 255 pages of back-and-forth that undermine your statement. Jack didn't face the same level of competition that Tiger has, and that undermines much of your argument. Also, using Ryder Cup records as a measure of success is useless without context. Jimmy Demaret retired with a perfect Ryder Cup record, against a European side that was devastated by World War II. Should he be looked upon that fondly for beating the crap of handicapped group? 

 

The fact that he has changed his technique means nothing. Here, let me spin it negatively: Tiger's changing of his swing cost him several majors. How about positively: Tiger's constant changing of his swing while still winning 14 majors just underscores how good of a player he is. Jack changing or not changing his technique means less than shit, to be frank. 

 

Tour pros go through teachers regularly. Tiger has gone through four: the pro who he started with, Harmon, Haney, and Foley. Golf instructors were not in vogue when Jack was playing like they are today; it's a different (and better by literally any measure) sporting world. 

 

I'm not even going to bother arguing with the idea that is Tiger only paying a certain select courses so that he could win. If you cannot see what's so dumb about that argument at face value, then I'm never going to be able to convince you. 

 

Debating on the internet. Good times.

post #4644 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbishop15 View Post
 

And we're back at the beginning of the circle. @iacas, you're a better man than I because if I had to repeat myself as much as you have to (in this thread, especially), I would throw myself off a building. 

 

Thanks.

 

To be clear, "competition" is only one of the reasons I feel Tiger's the GOAT over Jack (by a very slim margin). It's the biggest single factor, but many of the things @turtleback has cited also play significant roles.

 

It's just that so many people, which I at first did not believe were so plentiful, try to reduce the argument to "18 > 14" - and the single best way to consider that is to also consider who each had to beat to win those majors.

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