Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

[fonebone]

I believe a careful reading of my post says three times not one and ten seconds of Googling shows a Master's drop incorrectly taken, an incorrectly taken drop from a sandy area in Abu Dhabi and yesterday's clear causing of movement of the ball. I think all three times no rule's official was called,twice penalties were added at and one was done retroactively to avoid a disqualification

[k-troop]

Didn't see the footage of Tiger's penalty but isn't it the rule that, when moving an impediment, there's no penalty if the ball wiggles but comes to rest in the original position?

[Fourputt]

Didn't see the footage of Tiger's penalty but isn't it the rule that, when moving an impediment, there's no penalty if the ball wiggles but comes to rest in the original position?

Yes, but it's nearly impossible to prove that the ball only oscillated.  Any doubt is resolved against the player.  Tiger should have called for a ruling even if the ball only moved in his imagination.

These recent rules issues he's had just demonstrate to me that he's not where he should be mentally.  After the first one, I'd have been calling for a ruling every time there was any possible question.  The fact that he hasn't made that epiphany tells be that his mind just isn't always in the game like it should be.

[turtleback]

don't remember Jack getting three penalties assessed by the the tour ever. you can't look at players mindset but I can see a tendency developing.

And I don't remember every shot of his being televised and scrutinized.

The only tendency that is emerging is Tiger being put under a microscope that no other player on tour today is under, and no other player in earlier eras even could have been put under because of the way events were broadcast and the lack of technology.

[Lihu]

And I don't remember every shot of his being televised and scrutinized. The only tendency that is emerging is Tiger being put under a microscope that no other player on tour today is under, and no other player in earlier eras even could have been put under because of the way events were broadcast and the lack of technology.

Interesting thought, I wonder if it's because he's the top player and has the potential to break Jack's record soon.

[phan52]

And I don't remember every shot of his being televised and scrutinized.

The only tendency that is emerging is Tiger being put under a microscope that no other player on tour today is under, and no other player in earlier eras even could have been put under because of the way events were broadcast and the lack of technology.

Tiger didn't need technology t see that his ball moved the other day. Nobody had a better view of it than he did, but he made the decision to ignore it and move on. Too bad for him now that he got burned, and he is still in denial, saying the ball "oscillated". That is BS and everybody knows it. The ball clearly moved and I am fairly certain that the vast majority of PGA Tour players would have called that on themselves. I am 100% certain that Jack would have called it on the spot.

This is now part of the equation for me. I was disappointed that he didn't withdraw from the Masters when the powers-that-be gave him an out (an out that I find hard to believe they would have given to, say, Brandon de Jonge). This is more of an obvious thing than that was.

[k-troop]

Too bad for him now that he got burned, and he is still in denial, saying the ball "oscillated". That is BS and everybody knows it. The ball clearly moved and I am fairly certain that the vast majority of PGA Tour players would have called that on themselves.

Not "everyone" knows it.  I don't know it.  The ball didn't "clearly" move.  It wasn't clear to Tiger, his caddy, or anyone else around.  It's not even "clear" after looking at the stills.  The ball rotated somewhat, but it's not "clearly" in a different position.

The doubt about whether it oscillated or repositioned (I'll use the term reposition instead of move because I believe it's a more precise term under these circumstances) is resolved against the player.  But that's only if there is doubt--the rule still states that if the ball oscillates and comes to rest in the same position then there is no penalty.  If the ball rotates somewhat, but comes to rest in the same place, then it did not reposition under the rule (although it did "move" by the ordinary definition of that word, which is why I think "reposition" is a more precise word).  By my eyes, that's what happened in this case.

Thanks for telling us what the "vast majority of PGA Tour players" would have done in this situation.  Please send us the backup data on that:  whom did you poll, what questions did you ask them, and how did they respond?  Do you have an e-mail list for the top 70 in the current FedEx Cup standings?

[phan52]

Not "everyone" knows it.  I don't know it.  The ball didn't "clearly" move.  It wasn't clear to Tiger, his caddy, or anyone else around.  It's not even "clear" after looking at the stills.  The ball rotated somewhat, but it's not "clearly" in a different position.

The doubt about whether it oscillated or repositioned (I'll use the term reposition instead of move because I believe it's a more precise term under these circumstances) is resolved against the player.  But that's only if there is doubt--the rule still states that if the ball oscillates and comes to rest in the same position then there is no penalty.  If the ball rotates somewhat, but comes to rest in the same place, then it did not reposition under the rule (although it did "move" by the ordinary definition of that word, which is why I think "reposition" is a more precise word).  By my eyes, that's what happened in this case.

Thanks for telling us what the "vast majority of PGA Tour players" would have done in this situation.  Please send us the backup data on that:  whom did you poll, what questions did you ask them, and how did they respond?  Do you have an e-mail list for the top 70 in the current FedEx Cup standings?

I am not even going to debate this. "Reposition" my ass. The ball moved. You know, I know it and Tiger, who had the best view of anybody, knows it.

Now he says it "oscillated". Let's say that is what he saw. Why didn't he alert his playing partners or a rules official when it happened? Didn't he have a responsibility to do that? Further, why didn't he call over a rules official BEFORE he made the decision to start moving things around his ball?

Whatever, it's on his conscience. It was clear in the interview after yesterday's round. We'll see hw he deals wth it.

[jamo]

I am not even going to debate this. "Reposition" my ass. The ball moved. You know, I know it and Tiger, who had the best view of anybody, knows it. Now he says it "oscillated". Let's say that is what he saw. Why didn't he alert his playing partners or a rules official when it happened? Didn't he have a responsibility to do that? Whatever, it's on his conscience. It was clear in the interview after yesterday's round. We'll see hw he deals wth it.

No, he didn't have a responsibility to do that. Also, this is all :offtopic: for this thread.

[iacas]

Also, this is all for this thread.

Agreed. Further posts on this topic in this thread will result in restrictions from this thread.

[metrybill]

Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest

Is this still the topic?  Not about to read posts dating to 2006 or whatever.

Here is my take.  Tiger Woods has elevated the standard of play for all in his time.  However, so did Nicklaus whose majors were won against numerous Hall of Famers, those whose majors records are enviable. Compare Tiger Woods'  peer competition to Nicklaus' peer competition. There is really no comparison.  18 major wins, 19 seconds = 37. Tiger's final total is still a work in progress but as of now he has a total of 24 - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd finishes.

Which of Tiger's competitors would you compare to Nicklaus' competitors? Please: do not even mention Montgomerie, an awful selection to the Hall of Fame 0 majors.

Looking forward to the responses, even the hostile ones. Who do you see as Tigers' Hall of Fame competitors, other than Phil Mickelson?  BTW, how have they fared against each other? I would like an analytical answer, not an emotional, defensive one.  Facts and stats, please. TIGERS' HALL OF FAME COMPETITORS v. NICKLAUS' HALL OF FAME COMPETITORS.  This could be fun.

btw, Nicklaus was a terrific, high school athlete and probably could have played college basketball.  He had massive thighs, too. Hit the old MacGregor (terrible) balls ridiculous distances and curved them for control.  His MacGregor wedges were terrible, too, just ask Lee Trevino. Nicklaus played with a 43", less than 200 cc, wooden, steel shafted driver, and he still hit it 300 yds. on occasion - always under control.  He led the Tour in GIR's several times.

For me this is a no-brainer but I am a 65 y.o. geezer, started in '64, lowest hdcp, ever was a 3.

Based on character, Tiger would never make the Hall of Fame.  Cf. to Nicklaus. Of course, the Hall of Fame is about  golf and he will make it, maybe even before he is through playing.

[iacas]

Which of Tiger's competitors would you compare to Nicklaus' competitors? Please: do not even mention Montgomerie, an awful selection to the Hall of Fame 0 majors.

This has been done countless times in the thread already. Please just read through some of the "strength of field" oriented posts. Jack himself has said things like how the everyday PGA Tour player would have been a star in his time (or something).

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by metrybill

Which of Tiger's competitors would you compare to Nicklaus' competitors? Please: do not even mention Montgomerie, an awful selection to the Hall of Fame 0 majors.

This has been done countless times in the thread already. Please just read through some of the "strength of field" oriented posts. Jack himself has said things like how the everyday PGA Tour player would have been a star in his time (or something).

Of course, just because he says that doesn't make it true.  He has the same handicap as we do, in that nobody can say for certain how those players would do with the equipment of Jack's era.  They may never even have been inspired to play for the paltry purses offered in 1960.  It's always going to come down to the difficulty of validating such comparisons because of all of the differences in the game over the years.

[iacas]

Of course, just because he says that doesn't make it true.  He has the same handicap as we do, in that nobody can say for certain how those players would do with the equipment of Jack's era.  They may never even have been inspired to play for the paltry purses offered in 1960.  It's always going to come down to the difficulty of validating such comparisons because of all of the differences in the game over the years.

My point was obviously that this has been discussed, and he'll gain more traction in starting the discussion again if he referenced the earlier discussions or acknowledged that he'd read them.

And to say Jack has the same handicap as us is a joke and gives no credit to the fact that none of us were IN the sport like Jack, or are even IN it as much as he is NOW. Yes, it's still Jack's opinion, but he'd pass as a credible expert witness in a court of law, while you and I would not.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Of course, just because he says that doesn't make it true.  He has the same handicap as we do, in that nobody can say for certain how those players would do with the equipment of Jack's era.  They may never even have been inspired to play for the paltry purses offered in 1960.  It's always going to come down to the difficulty of validating such comparisons because of all of the differences in the game over the years.

My point was obviously that this has been discussed, and he'll gain more traction in starting the discussion again if he referenced the earlier discussions or acknowledged that he'd read them.

And to say Jack has the same handicap as us is a joke and gives no credit to the fact that none of us were IN the sport like Jack, or are even IN it as much as he is NOW. Yes, it's still Jack's opinion, but he'd pass as a credible expert witness in a court of law, while you and I would not.

True, although the opposing attorney would probably have a field day with it.

[theworldengine]

Man reading this thread and the stuff from the haters. I hope tiger surpasses 100 wins and never wins another major, just to hear how ridiculous the jackers will sound when they still insist jack was better.

[Jakester23]

I honestly think there is no way he won't win another major. Just like I don't see how he won't get to 100 wins. IMO he has another 10 years of winning regularly. Probably anothet 5 after that where he has a solid chance at the courses he owns.

[Lihu]

I honestly think there is no way he won't win another major. Just like I don't see how he won't get to 100 wins. IMO he has another 10 years of winning regularly. Probably anothet 5 after that where he has a solid chance at the courses he owns.

I see him winning way more as well. This thread is about who's the greatest. Not who will be in ten years, that remains to be seen. It will be fun to look back on all the responses then.