Jump to content
sungho_kr

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

Greatest Golfer (GGOAT)  

149 members have voted

  1. 1. Tiger or Jack: Who's the greatest golfer?

    • Tiger Woods is the man
      1639
    • Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
      803


6,176 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, BillBuckeye said:

Had Hogan not been nearly killed by a bus, would we be talking about him instead? 

most of Hogan's accomplishments came after the accident. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

19 minutes ago, BillBuckeye said:

Is there a point to stating one’s opinions on this string? Nope....it’s all been brought up before and that’s good enough for some of you. The simple fact is they were both amazing golfers, not only them but a few others, Hogan comes to mind. Had Hogan not been nearly killed by a bus, would we be talking about him instead? Tiger had the best 10 year run of anyone who’s played the game, Jack sustained his place at the top for about 20 years. In my opinion, the sustained greatness of Jack surpasses Tiger’s accomplishments. 

So basically in the face of empirical facts you have nothing.  You are shifting the grounds of your argument, since you cannot sustain your ill-informed position on strength of field or the value of 2nd place finishes.  So you fall back on longevity.  Also ignoring the fact that other than total number of majors - a criteria for GOAT that was never used, until Jack realized he wasn't going to catch Snead in total victories and started lobbying for majors - Tiger did more in his shorter career than Jack did in his longer career.  More tour victories (Jack's original criteria for GOAT), a non-calendar slam (another of Jack's criteria for GOAT), longer no-cut streak, way ahead on winning streaks, way ahead on winning margins, more Vardons and POYs, more WGCs*, etc.  

* I can hear the cries that counting WGCs isn't fair because they weren't around in Jack's prime.  But it was Jack who said counting majors was the only fair way to compare, even though he had far more opportunities to play majors than any previous golfer.  So it is just as valid, and makes more sense, for me to claim that the only fair way to compare is number of victories in events in which substantially all of the top 50 players in the world were entered.  Which puts the balance at 36 to 1, if we charitably give Jack credit for the '86 Masters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I just can't wrap my head around someone thinking trying to factor in luck is a necessity when it comes to deciding/picking who was/is better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

So basically in the face of empirical facts you have nothing.  You are shifting the grounds of your argument, since you cannot sustain your ill-informed position on strength of field or the value of 2nd place finishes.  So you fall back on longevity.  Also ignoring the fact that other than total number of majors - a criteria for GOAT that was never used, until Jack realized he wasn't going to catch Snead in total victories and started lobbying for majors - Tiger did more in his shorter career than Jack did in his longer career.  More tour victories (Jack's original criteria for GOAT), a non-calendar slam (another of Jack's criteria for GOAT), longer no-cut streak, way ahead on winning streaks, way ahead on winning margins, more Vardons and POYs, more WGCs*, etc.  

* I can hear the cries that counting WGCs isn't fair because they weren't around in Jack's prime.  But it was Jack who said counting majors was the only fair way to compare, even though he had far more opportunities to play majors than any previous golfer.  So it is just as valid, and makes more sense, for me to claim that the only fair way to compare is number of victories in events in which substantially all of the top 50 players in the world were entered.  Which puts the balance at 36 to 1, if we charitably give Jack credit for the '86 Masters.

 I must admit, joining this discussion forum was a mistake. You guys have already decided who the greatest so why have the thread at all? Empirical facts? You folks state opinions and call them facts. You’ve all decided which opinion/facts matter to you and reject any other people’s thoughts. So, try not to strain yourselves patting yourselves on the back for your narrow minded views and pompous posts, I’m sure all your clone buddies will enjoy reading them, I won’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, BillBuckeye said:

 I must admit, joining this discussion forum was a mistake. You guys have already decided who the greatest so why have the thread at all? Empirical facts? You folks state opinions and call them facts. You’ve all decided which opinion/facts matter to you and reject any other people’s thoughts. So, try not to strain yourselves patting yourselves on the back for your narrow minded views and pompous posts, I’m sure all your clone buddies will enjoy reading them, I won’t.

If you thought you were going to roll in here and set us all straight then yes it may have been a mistake.  You have to actually bring forth data and reasoning to make an impression here and you have done neither.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion but don't expect anyone to agree with it without at least trying to make a cogent fact based argument.  Even @Fidelio at least tries to make an argument, but seem to just want everyone to roll over to your opinion.  And that ain't happening.

You might find some of the golf forums here more compatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

8 hours ago, BillBuckeye said:

Had Hogan not been nearly killed by a bus, would we be talking about him instead? Tiger had the best 10 year run of anyone who’s played the game, Jack sustained his place at the top for about 20 years. In my opinion, the sustained greatness of Jack surpasses Tiger’s accomplishments. 

If Jack had been at the top for 20 years, I would agree.   Even though I have written hundreds of posts arguing that Tiger's wins are more impressive than Jack's due to the strength of the fields he had to beat, my top criterion for GOAT is sustained dominance, and 20 years of dominance would be more than enough to make Jack the GOAT.

But he wasn't at the top for 20 years, he was near the top.  Arnie was better than Jack in the early 60's.  Casper was better Jack in the late 60's.  Jack had the best stretch of his career in the early 70's, but even then, Casper had a better 1970, Trevino had a better 1971, and Miller had a better 1974.  And in the late 70's, Watson dominated like Jack never did, with four years in a row as the world's top golfer, three of them dominant.  Jack won only three times after 1980.

And scattered among his prime are years when even golfers on nobody's all-time top 20, like Tony Lema and Dave Hill, had better claims to "world's best golfer" than Jack.  So no, he didn't sustain his place at the top for 20 years.  By my count, he was the world's undisputed best golfer for only five seasons, and only once did he have even two years in a row at the top.

By contrast, Tiger had ten years when he was indisputably the best, and 12 where you could make a good case for it.  He had two separate five-year stretches where he was more dominant than Jack's best two-year stretch.   He had at least three years better than Jack's best year.

Jack had a longer winning span (if Tiger never wins again), and won more majors, although all of them had a weaker field than his Memorial does today.  Tiger dominates every other stat.

 

8 hours ago, lastings said:

most of Hogan's accomplishments came after the accident. 

You are mistaken.  Hogan won only 13 times after his accident.  Six of them were majors, but he won 51 times before his accident, and doubtless would have won several majors if they hadn't been cancelled during WWII.

And he only had two majors per year to play after his accident.  He couldn't play the PGA, because his legs were not up to the ten rounds in one week needed to win in the match play era.  He theoretically could play the Open, and did once, but before comfortable jet travel,  it was so much trouble for so little reward (his 1953 winner's check was about $1400, when the other three majors paid $5000) that it wasn't worth it.

And make no mistake, he was in pain all the time.  Who knows how much that affected him, even when he could play?

I'd bet my house that with no war and no accident, he'd have 100 wins and 20 majors.

And just by the way, even though Hogan won "only" nine majors, Jack thought Hogan was the GOAT for a period in the early 60's.  Not Hagen, who had 11 majors.  Obviously, this was before Jack said that majors were the only fair way to compare golfers of different eras, throwing Hogan under the bus for the second time.

 

Edited by brocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BillBuckeye said:

Empirical facts? You folks state opinions and call them facts.

Like what, @BillBuckeye?

7 hours ago, BillBuckeye said:

So, try not to strain yourselves patting yourselves on the back for your narrow minded views and pompous posts, I’m sure all your clone buddies will enjoy reading them, I won’t.

When you want to open your mind, we'll still be here, unfortunately sharing the same facts for the fiftieth time or so… :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

 

On 7/10/2018 at 9:41 PM, iacas said:

 

Which is you arguing against yourself. Congratulations. You don't even know what to call it.

 

I love when you argue against yourself but don't even seem to notice.

 

At this point. I am telling. I am not debating on the luck issue.  I am right. You are wrong. It isn't disputable. Continuing to act like what I am saying is crazy is the equivalent to not believing in gravity. 

The two sentences I singled out say everything that needs to be said about your posts.  Why would it be bizarre to bring up counterpoints to your argument? If you pursue truth, that should happen constantly.  It happens in almost all of my posts that are multiple paragraphs. It happens in none of your posts. Literally none.  You write like Paul Krugman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fidelio said:

At this point. I am telling. I am not debating on the luck issue.  I am right. You are wrong. It isn't disputable. Continuing to act like what I am saying is crazy is the equivalent to not believing in gravity.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The "luck" line of bullshit you keep peddling is anything but fact. It's complete bullshit. Linking to an article on clutch hitting doesn't make it a truth, and neither does saying "it isn't disputable."

5 hours ago, Fidelio said:

The two sentences I singled out say everything that needs to be said about your posts.  Why would it be bizarre to bring up counterpoints to your argument?

Why would it be bizarre to argue against yourself? Because you're not even consistent in putting forth your own thoughts. You contradict yourself. You say things like "the entire career matters" and then discard the entire career of Tiger Woods, and the other accolades he's achieved in golf. Many other examples exist.

5 hours ago, Fidelio said:

If you pursue truth, that should happen constantly.

Not really.

It's one thing to go where the truth leads you, and if that means you have to change your mind, being fine with doing so.

It's another thing entirely to just make asinine statements like "it isn't disputable."

You want to believe in "luck" now as defined by an article that listed any performance different than the norm as "luck"? Be my guest, but that's not pursuit of the truth. That's believing something - even though the article doesn't talk about Jack's performance and classifies Tiger Woods among those who didn't need luck to win - just because you think it supports your pre-conceived, pre-formed notion. You've assumed your conclusion, as @brocks said.

And once again, rather than debate the actual merits of the arguments posed against you, you've gone ad hominem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

6 hours ago, Fidelio said:

 

At this point. I am telling. I am not debating on the luck issue.  I am right. You are wrong. It isn't disputable. Continuing to act like what I am saying is crazy is the equivalent to not believing in gravity. 

The two sentences I singled out say everything that needs to be said about your posts.  Why would it be bizarre to bring up counterpoints to your argument? If you pursue truth, that should happen constantly.  It happens in almost all of my posts that are multiple paragraphs. It happens in none of your posts. Literally none.  You write like Paul Krugman.

Not believing in luck is not the same thing as not believing in gravity. One is quantified and easily demonstrable, the other is a subjective idea with no possible way to prove it exists. Statistical anomalies =/= luck. It makes about as much sense as people who believe the earth is flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

21 hours ago, turtleback said:

 


6 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Not believing in luck is not the same thing as not believing in gravity. One is quantified and easily demonstrable, the other is a subjective idea with no possible way to prove it exists. Statistical anomalies =/= luck. It makes about as much sense as people who believe the earth is flat.

Mistake above ignore that. Look, it’s apparent Fidelio has some issues beyond what’s going on here. It’s probably best we just stop responding to his non-sensical posts. He’s not trying to debate this issue any more. He’s acting out of thought patterns we can’t do anything about. Just let him go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

13 hours ago, Fidelio said:

 

At this point. I am telling. I am not debating on the luck issue.  I am right. You are wrong. It isn't disputable. Continuing to act like what I am saying is crazy is the equivalent to not believing in gravity. 

 

Citing one article and not showing the peer review is very deceiving. I can find articles that state the Earth in unequivocally flat. Are you willing to believe those claims?

And believing that Calcavecchia or any other tournament winner, who doesn't win a lot, is just luck is ludicrous. They just played better that tournament. They drove better. Hit greens better and putted better than their average results. Winning on tour is hard, very hard. They played their very best to beat others that week.

Winning 79 PGA and over a 100 total professional tournaments, 3 consecutive National Junior Amateur titles, 3 consecutive National Amateur Titles and an NCAA Individual Title is not "all about luck" for goodness sake. It is about behind incredibly good at golf.

I supposed Bill Russell's two NCAA Titles, Olympic Gold Medal and 11 NBA Championships were just a string of lucky years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Hey I am new to this thread and this may have been discussed before, if so just tell me to look back through!

I have skimmed through some of the 300+ pages in this thread and it is clear that the general consensus is that Tiger, to this point, has had the best and most dominant golf career to date. I think the stats are impossible for anyone to argue! But, at the same time it might be worth considering the influence that Jack’s success may have had on Tiger. I have read somewhere that Tiger kept posters on his wall with Jacks accomplishments which provided him with a goal and guidelines that he knew he had to accomplish to become the best (which for the most part he completed all of those except 1). Jack probably knew he was on the fast track to becoming the GOAT so this could have easily negatively affected his game. 

I think that everyone agree that these are two of the most competitive champions to ever play the game. Somewhere on this thread it was mentioned that out of 100 it would be like 65-35 in favor of Tiger. I feel like this is a hard number to judge and most likely inaccurate because if Jack knew growing up that a prodigy named Tiger would have been born he would have pushed himself more and would have tried little harder (he has said this before in interviews). That extra work could have potentially caused him to win some of those 2nd place finishes. I think without a doubt Tiger has been the most dominant golfer to date but I think that if you switch their birthdays and reversed positions (have Jack start golfing before the age of 2, learn from a scratch golfer, hit countless golf balls into a garage net as a kid, have the mind set of becoming the best) that Jack would have been just as good if not better than Tiger. I feel like Tiger has been the most dominant golfer but would not turn down the idea of Jack being the GOAT.      *note: Tiger was a scratch golfer around the age Jack STARTED golfing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack still had people like Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, and other greats of the time to compete against.  The type of people that become top athletes in their sport aren't the type to take time off generally, or allow themselves to be surpassed by their competition.  They will do what they can to be the best, be it through research, better drills, better course management, better diet and workout routines, better whatever.  He still had targets to go after (Snead's all time wins) or majors before he got that record, so I don't believe he wasn't pushing himself to be the best that he could possibly be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 minute ago, amished said:

Jack still had people like Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, and other greats of the time to compete against.  The type of people that become top athletes in their sport aren't the type to take time off generally, or allow themselves to be surpassed by their competition.  They will do what they can to be the best, be it through research, better drills, better course management, better diet and workout routines, better whatever.  He still had targets to go after (Snead's all time wins) or majors before he got that record, so I don't believe he wasn't pushing himself to be the best that he could possibly be.

This thread, or really any discussion regarding GOAT isn’t about what ‘could’ve happened.’ Every player , era has its advantages and disadvantages. That is part of reality. So we’re discussion what actually happened/is happening. What if Jack pushing harder caused injury and he wasn’t able to win 18 majors? See what I mean? The ‘what if’s ‘ play no part in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

8 hours ago, fnlights said:

Hey I am new to this thread and this may have been discussed before, if so just tell me to look back through!

I have skimmed through some of the 300+ pages in this thread and it is clear that the general consensus is that Tiger, to this point, has had the best and most dominant golf career to date. I think the stats are impossible for anyone to argue! But, at the same time it might be worth considering the influence that Jack’s success may have had on Tiger. I have read somewhere that Tiger kept posters on his wall with Jacks accomplishments which provided him with a goal and guidelines that he knew he had to accomplish to become the best (which for the most part he completed all of those except 1). Jack probably knew he was on the fast track to becoming the GOAT so this could have easily negatively affected his game. 

I think that everyone agree that these are two of the most competitive champions to ever play the game. Somewhere on this thread it was mentioned that out of 100 it would be like 65-35 in favor of Tiger. I feel like this is a hard number to judge and most likely inaccurate because if Jack knew growing up that a prodigy named Tiger would have been born he would have pushed himself more and would have tried little harder (he has said this before in interviews). That extra work could have potentially caused him to win some of those 2nd place finishes. I think without a doubt Tiger has been the most dominant golfer to date but I think that if you switch their birthdays and reversed positions (have Jack start golfing before the age of 2, learn from a scratch golfer, hit countless golf balls into a garage net as a kid, have the mind set of becoming the best) that Jack would have been just as good if not better than Tiger. I feel like Tiger has been the most dominant golfer but would not turn down the idea of Jack being the GOAT.      *note: Tiger was a scratch golfer around the age Jack STARTED golfing

Jack actually CREATED the path to GOAT, although it was hardly a fast track.  He finally succeeded when he made the most self-serving and intellectually dishonest statement about comparing players imaginable.  As you indicate you haven't had a chance yet to read more of the thread let me resurrect something that explains what I mean.  I'll preface it by saying that Jack is the only one in the history of golf who was ever acclaimed as GOAT based on number of majors won.  This was written a long time ago by our very own @brocks.

 

Quote

One of the side issues that has recently come up in several different threads was Jack himself lobbying to make majors the standard for GOAT (Greatest of All Time).

Jack fans, who like to accuse Tiger fans of knowing nothing about golf history, seem strangely unaware that before Jack broke the record, the pro with the most major wins was Walter Hagen, who had 11 titles now recognized as majors, plus five Western Opens, which was considered a major before the Masters was founded, and certainly had much tougher fields than the amateur majors that padded Jones's total. 16 majors, from a guy who won the US Open before the PGA or Masters were even founded, and who had to travel by ship to play the British Open (which was cancelled for WWI for five years during Hagen's prime), but nobody ever said Hagen was the GOAT.  But somehow, by the late 70's, most of the public and media accepted that "most majors" was the best way to compare players.

I'm a Tiger fan now, but I've been attending PGA events since the 60's, and Jack was my favorite player for over 30 years. I very clearly remember him lobbying for the majors standard in TV interviews. I've collected references I've found over the years, and I thought I'd post some samples to show a timeline of the evolution of Jack's statements on the subject.  Hopefully some of my pals here can use it for future reference.  I'm starting a new thread so it will be easy to find, and I think it has enough meat to be a subject in itself.
I've indulged myself by guessing Jack's motives for each change of direction.  I acknowledge that it is sheer speculation.  Anything inside quotes is something Jack said; anything outside of quotes is my own paraphrase or imagination, and you're welcome to differ with my opinion of his motives.  But I think the quotes pretty much speak for themselves.

1959 --- As an amateur, Jack says that Bobby Jones is the greatest player ever.  But he says it in the context of the Grand Slam, not his total major wins.  Note that in Jack's 1996 autobiography, he said that he never seriously contemplated turning pro until mid-1961, so he felt he had a long time to try to match the feat of Jones:
"That's my goal. Bobby Jones. It's the only goal."
Unfortunately, the original is no longer linkable since Time put up a pay wall.

1963 --- Now he's a pro, so it's no longer possible to duplicate the Slam of Bobby Jones. Jack nimbly comes up with a new standard for GOAT. He says the guy who wins the most tournaments (not majors) is the greatest golfer of all time: "My aim is to win more golf tournaments than anybody who ever lived. I want to be the greatest." Arnie had averaged over seven wins a year for the previous three years, and Jack had beaten Arnie at the previous US Open, so Jack probably figured he could break Snead's record in no more than 12 years.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l-8qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1IgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3429%2C1549725

1965 --- In spite of one of the fastest starts ever, Jack is only averaging four wins per year, which means it might take over 20 years to catch Snead, even if Jack can keep up his youthful pace (he was playing 26 events a year then).  Jack reconsiders his chances, and switches goals again. He now considers Hogan as the greatest ever.  He says to beat him, he might have to win the (pro) Grand Slam, which only takes one good year.  Note that Hogan had fewer majors than Hagen, whom Jack never mentioned as a standard.  Note also that Jack is here saying it's possible to be the GOAT with just four majors, if they're consecutive:
"Right now I think you would have to say that Hogan was the best ever. That is the goal, but I don't know how you get there. Maybe I could win the Grand Slam, but what would I do after that if I was still young?"
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1076860/index.htm

Bonus from 1965:  How many times have you read a post claiming that golfers today lack the killer instinct because of the money they can make by just getting top tens?  And how the golfers in Jack's day had to win, or their kids would go hungry?  Here's an article from 1965 saying that American golfers are too soft, because all their endorsement money makes them not care about winning:
' Palmer summed it up well recently when he was quoted as follows: "I don't think it's a good idea for our young players to compete without any real financial incentive, which is what happens when you have a sponsor. These kids don't know what it is like to have to win in order to survive. They know they don't need to win to make a lot of money—more money than they ever dreamed of."'
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077470/index.htm

1970 --- This was the watershed year, when Jack switched his goal to most majors, consecutive or not. I haven't found a contemporary account of Jack's exchange with Bob Green, the AP reporter who told Jack that he was only three majors short of Bobby Jones's total after Jack won the 1970 Open at St. Andrews, but here is Jack's recollection of it:
"It's like my majors, I never counted my majors until Bob Green (of The Associated Press) told me at St. Andrews in the '70s. He says, 'Hey, Jack, that's ten, only three more to tie Bobby Jones.' I said, 'Really?' Honest, I swear, I never counted them."
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/04/10/jack-nicklaus-reflects-on-50-years-of-masters-and-tiger-woods-chance-to-eclipse-him/

1970 -- Jack quickly latches on to the idea of winning four more majors to beat Jones, rather than 50 more PGA events to beat Snead, or the seemingly impossible Grand Slam.  One week after his Open win, Jack says his chief goal has always been the Grand Slam, but now adds that his other goal is winning 14 majors to beat Bobby Jones. Note that at this time, it is just his personal goal, and not a suggested standard.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=D4VGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VS8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3260%2C2089101

1971 -- Jack says his goal in golf is 14 majors to beat Jones's record, but now hints that if he does it, it would make him the GOAT:
"The accomplishment that would separate me from other golfers is to win more major championships than [Jones] did."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=MjojAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OrcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=766%2C5396241

1973 --- Jack wins his 14th major, breaking Jones's record.  He now argues that majors are the only way to judge players of different eras.  Note that he sort of acknowledges that it's not fair to Jones, who CHOSE to stop playing majors, but he doesn't mention Hogan, Hagen, Snead, and everybody else who came before him, who COULDN'T play four majors a year, or had several majors cancelled for world wars:
"You can't compare stroke average because of the difference in course and people and equipment.  You certainly can't compare money winnings.  That's not valid.  The only yardstick is the major championships.  And even those aren't the same.  The comparison is very difficult to make.  Remember, Jones retired at 28. If he'd stayed active, there's no telling how many he would have won."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8upRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9XIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5064%2C4016575

1973 --- Dan Jenkins, chief golf writer for SI and Jack's head cheerleader, lends his full support.  He says with his 14th major, Jack "officially became the greatest golfer who ever lived or died," and compares an offhand remark Jack made to the Gettysburg Address. You think Tiger has sycophants in the media...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1087686/index.htm

1975 --- Now in full lobbying mode, Jack argues that majors are the ONLY FAIR WAY to judge players.  Not a hint about Jones retiring early, let alone Hagen hitting his prime before the PGA or Masters were founded:
"Money changes.  You can't use that to compare.  The only fair, adequate way to compare a player of one era against a player of another is his record in the major championships."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XlVNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7076%2C4326235

1979 --- Mission accomplished. The public has thrown Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Nelson, and Snead under the bus, and bought into the idea that majors are the only fair comparison.  Jack says his goal now is to extend his majors record as high as possible, to make it harder for a future player to catch him. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z0xSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RHwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6823%2C6632381

And there you have it,  The modern day equivalent would be as if Tiger lobbied for GOAT to be the guy who has the most combined majors, WGCs, and Players.  If Tiger did that heads would explode in outrage, yet Jack does the equivalent and the whole golf world just went along

That last paragraph is mine, not @brocks.

Edited by turtleback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

32 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Jack actually CREATED the path to GOAT, although it was hardly a fast track.  He finally succeeded when he made the most self-serving and intellectually dishonest statement about comparing players imaginable.  As you indicate you haven't had a chance yet to read more of the thread let me resurrect something that explains what I mean.  I'll preface it by saying that Jack is the only one in the history of golf who was ever acclaimed as GOAT based on number of majors won.  This was written a long time ago by our very own @brocks.

 

That last paragraph is mine, not @brocks.

Such an eloquent post. Well done to replace it here for reference. I started watching golf with my dad in 1975 so I very well remember Jack. He was my most admired golfer until Tiger came along. I have no melancholic sentiments preventing me from clearly seeing Tiger as the GOAT. Unfortunately there are those who simply refuse to accept the changing of the guard and will unknowingly humiliate themselves in their deep seeded stubbornness with outlandish arguments regarding ‘what if’s’ and ‘luck’ having a logical position in statistics. Again, thank you @brocks, @turtleback, @iacas and others for providing such wonderful logic, stats, data and some damn good history scattered among the hilarity of delusional and psuedo-scientific rubbish. Nice work guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 hours ago, turtleback said:

This was written a long time ago by our very own @brocks.

Yeah, unfortunately so long ago that many of the links no longer work.  But I think you can find most of the SI articles by simply googling the quote.  And here's the National Post article, where Jack said he never even counted his majors until 1970:

https://nationalpost.com/sports/golf/jack-nicklaus-reflects-on-50-years-of-masters-and-tiger-woods-chance-to-eclipse-him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...