Note: This thread is 5773 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!
-
Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap
-
- 7,077 replies
- 761,141 views
-
- 6,801 replies
- 272,082 views
-
- 49 replies
- 4,924 views
-
SuperSpeed Sues Stack System for Supposedly Syndicating Successes & Statistics
By iacas, in Balls, Carts/Bags, Apparel, Gear, Etc.
- 2 replies
- 537 views
-
- 1 reply
- 11,275 views
-
-
TST Partners
Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.
Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. -
Popular Now
-
-
Posts
-
By iacas ·
Poppycock! It was just as difficult to score goals in this video as it is now: It was just as difficult to finish T5 in a major in 1966 as it is in 2006, too. Those ten-year-olds, errrr, club pros and part-time "tour" players were every bit as good as the guys who, today, have been playing high level golf since they were children. -
By Vinsk ·
@GolfSwami When you choose to completely ignore the facts and mathematics of Tiger’s dominance over Jack, I find it hard to believe you have no emotional tie to this. SOF HAS to be factored. Hell, you’re so fond of using other sports….SOS is a huge determinant in the NCAA Football playoffs. Gee, why wasn’t UCF the number one team when they went 13-0? That’s crazy right!?😜 -
By iacas ·
Best and Greatest are synonyms IMO. Yep. Longevity is a stupid way to determine something like this. If someone took 30 years to amass a certain record, and someone else accomplished the same thing or more in ten years, the second player is better. Golf wasn't nearly as athletic, as taxing, or as well paid, when Jack played. Careers were longer. It's becoming more explosive, with shorter careers. Guys hit more balls now, train harder now, etc. Dude, 14/10 vs. 5/4 is not remotely the same as 18/72 vs. 15/82. It requires context. Jack was playing against club pros. I agree - Tiger blows Jack's record out of the water when you adjust for field strength. 😉 We agree again: Tiger might have won 30 majors. 🤣 Ha ha ha ha ha ha. No, dude. No, it's not "wrong" and the fields were significantly shallower and weaker when Jack played. Pretend Jack amassed his record against ten-year-olds. How impressive would that be? There's context. Jack amassed his record against significantly weaker/shallower competition. This has all been discussed a hundred times. As it would be if he played against ten-year-olds. Compare Tiger's SG in the PGA Championships against only the club pros and let me know how that shakes out. Strokes gained is against the competition at the time. Competition. Jack strongly disagrees with you, and you're casually leaving off the 2000s, too. No, they weren't. Once in a great while they popped up, but no, they weren't. Given all of the conversation that's been had in this topic, this ranks as one of the dumbest posts ever in this topic. If it was made in the first ten pages, cool. But, no. You made it on page 390-something. Try this on for size: every one of Tiger's 82 PGA Tour wins faced stronger/deeper fields than any of Jack's major victories. I also don't really care about top-tens in majors. 15 x > 18 y, where x and y are the respective strength/depth of field. It may be coherent, but so is someone saying 2 + 2 = 7 or someone trying to explain chemtrails. You can understand what they're trying to say, but it can still be a bad, lousy argument. This implies that I do. I do not. I've made the mathematical argument throughout. You're literally counting things with little to no regard for the freaking competition. Guess what: NHL scoring went down when goalies got more pads and learned to take away more parts of the net by learning to go butterfly, etc. The competition changed, and so scoring records aren't the same now as when Wayne Gretzky played most of his hockey. Because the competition is different now. Neither is someone trying to say that 2 + 2 = 7 or that the earth is flat. I can comprehend what they're saying, but they're still a wacko. Dude. -
By GolfSwami ·
Majors are the primary yardstick that most people use. No one cares about winning some 30 person tour championship or some defunct tournament with 50 people. Those are exhibitions. I use other sports to show that I have a coherent thought process because this debate seems fraught with emotion because of the names. Jack and Tiger are just nouns to me. I have no emotional attachment to either one. The thought process would be no different in evaluating Jeongeun Kim5 or Jeongeun Kim6. It is not hard to comprehend. I even gave you a helpful example of Clemson football so that you would understand. If you can't understand that, life is going to be too much for you. Charlie Munger Quote: “Without numerical fluency, in the part of life most of us inhibit, you are like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking conte...” “Without numerical fluency, in the part of life most of us inhibit, you are like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.” — Charlie Munger quotes from QuoteFancy.com -
By Vinsk ·
And that gap between Tiger’s total wins against Jack’s is massive. And aside from your obsession with majors, Tiger’s accomplishments are massive compared to Jack’s. And stop using other sports as an example. This is golf. Have you not looked at the lists of Tiger vs Jack accomplishments and records? It’s comical to look at both of them and derive that Jack is the GOAT. You acknowledge the weak fields Jack played in then turn around and state how amazing his major records are. That makes no sense at all.
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now