Tiger's future...cautiously optimisitc?

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by MrElculver2424

I should have never used the word natural. What I meant was his game was always the purest ever. The changes he made came naturally because he wanted to become better.

By naturally you mean the longest and most range practice sessions on Tour?

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by MrElculver2424

I should have never used the word natural. What I meant was his game was always the purest ever. The changes he made came naturally because he wanted to become better.

HTF did the changes come naturally when he had to constantly have instructors in order to make them? Jack Grout taught Niclaus as a kid and that's what Jack went with from then on, making changes himself throughout his career. Heck, Nicklaus could sense and change a bad swing in the middle of it, like he did at the 17th hole at Pebble Beach in 1972. When Tiger was having problems, he always sought out his instructor, hardly natural.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by MrElculver2424

but the most dominant and best overall golfer is Tiger.

You almost have to laugh when this sort of thing is written.

Despite evidence to the contrary, folk like MrElculver will continue to talk in generalities about very specific things, and talk very specifically about general things.

He will then go blue in the face trying to defend the things he has written, when there is no defence for them.

It's like reading Wikipedia entries made by fans before they have been corrected.

Trotting lines out like "Tiger is the best" and "Tiger is the best ever" is a perfect way to set yourself up as a very naive golf fan with a narrow perspective.

If you want to know what "dominance is", look at Nicklaus' career over a period of 20 odd years.

And then, to write this gibberish: "Yes, the purest naturally talented golfer of all-time."  What can that possibly mean?

Then....the correction fom "most natural" to "purest".  Gawd give me strength....  Purest?????? If ever there was a weasel word in golf, that's it.

There are many players who you could say that about and have a decent argument.

I'll start with a few: Crenshaw, Tom Watson, Greg Norman. Tiger looks positively mechanical and ungainly against some of these guys.

Which golfers in the 40s, 50s and 60s did you grow up watching?  But then...nothing counted until big screen TVs and sycophantic commentators came along to hype things up.

Then we have the clincher "But a lot of credit is due to his dad, who helped him gain the mental toughness and skills."  Reads like something from a book about Tiger written by a 12 year old who did his research on the net over the space of five minutes.

Tiger's father was a complete and utter nutcase. And all the crap about making noises during his swing to balk him and put him off, didn't you ever notice how easily he is put off when things aren't going his way? Tiger's father was very likely the cause of Tiger having such astonishing arrogance at a young age and being such a hypocrite. He set himself up as some sort of prophet and claimed that Tiger was going to be the second coming.

And...please have your conversations with people you have and haven't blocked via PM, so we don't all have to read about your petty disputes.

Tiger Woods has cemented his place as the second best player ever. And that is by Tiger's standards - major wins.  I eagerly await future developments. I don't have to "believe in" Tiger, whatever that means.

[Tiger Spuds]

He's only a youngin' lads, give him a break!

That said, some of what he said is obviously incorrect. To say Tiger's more naturally talented than Jack was is so, so wrong. To win 18 majors and finish his career with 116 professional wins overall with the technical swing 'flaws' Jack had was supremely impressive. His entire game was based on 'natural talent'. Even as an amateur, Tiger's swing was technically better. As someone else pointed on the previous page, Tiger himself doesn't consider himself a 'natural' talent. A lot of his success is down to hard work. Would Tiger even rank in the top 5 of the greatest ballstrikers of all time?

[Zwick]

oha, I think this is the most senseless thread in the whole forum...

I sumarize the next pages for you:

Tiger is better! no way, Jack is better! but Tiger! no Jack! don't forget Jones!

[senorchipotle]

Originally Posted by MrElculver2424

Don't get all technical. You know what I mean. Maybe it wasn't there from birth, but growing up? Yes, the purest naturally talented golfer of all-time. But a lot of credit is due to his dad, who helped him gain the mental toughness and skills.

i'm not really sure what "pure natural golf talent" is, because golf is one of the most unnatural sports their is. the best athletes out there right now are probably DJ and alvaro quiros. the golfers with the most innate ability to play golf are arguably john daly, lee trevino, and greg norman. it just so happens that tiger is a great athlete, naturally flexible and strong, and has a mental toughness that nobody else does. pur

[newtogolf]

I'm a big fan of Tiger as a golfer (not so much as a man or parent) but you have to remain objective if you're going to make comparisons between him and Jack on a site like this.  Tiger has fallen short on total wins and major wins to Jack so he can be considered one of the best, but not the best.  Tiger is also considered one of the most mechanical golfers, he's always tinkering with his swing, switiching coaches, etc.

As for his mental toughness, the jury is out, he was very mentally tough, but that was before his indescretions became public.  Since then he's shown glimpses of the old Tiger but hasn't really done anything that makes me believe he's past it.

[MrElculver2424]

Originally Posted by Shorty

You almost have to laugh when this sort of thing is written.

Despite evidence to the contrary, folk like MrElculver will continue to talk in generalities about very specific things, and talk very specifically about general things.

He will then go blue in the face trying to defend the things he has written, when there is no defence for them.

It's like reading Wikipedia entries made by fans before they have been corrected.

Trotting lines out like "Tiger is the best" and "Tiger is the best ever" is a perfect way to set yourself up as a very naive golf fan with a narrow perspective.

If you want to know what "dominance is", look at Nicklaus' career over a period of 20 odd years.

And then, to write this gibberish: "Yes, the purest naturally talented golfer of all-time."  What can that possibly mean?

Then....the correction fom "most natural" to "purest".  Gawd give me strength....  Purest?????? If ever there was a weasel word in golf, that's it.

There are many players who you could say that about and have a decent argument.

I'll start with a few: Crenshaw, Tom Watson, Greg Norman. Tiger looks positively mechanical and ungainly against some of these guys.

Which golfers in the 40s, 50s and 60s did you grow up watching?  But then...nothing counted until big screen TVs and sycophantic commentators came along to hype things up.

Then we have the clincher "But a lot of credit is due to his dad, who helped him gain the mental toughness and skills."  Reads like something from a book about Tiger written by a 12 year old who did his research on the net over the space of five minutes.

Tiger's father was a complete and utter nutcase. And all the crap about making noises during his swing to balk him and put him off, didn't you ever notice how easily he is put off when things aren't going his way? Tiger's father was very likely the cause of Tiger having such astonishing arrogance at a young age and being such a hypocrite. He set himself up as some sort of prophet and claimed that Tiger was going to be the second coming.

And...please have your conversations with people you have and haven't blocked via PM, so we don't all have to read about your petty disputes.

Tiger Woods has cemented his place as the second best player ever. And that is by Tiger's standards - major wins.  I eagerly await future developments. I don't have to "believe in" Tiger, whatever that means.

You have nothing better to do than write all that about me? It's my opinion...there is no fact yet. Everyone has a different opinion...you are just ridiculous.

[MrElculver2424]

Originally Posted by Shorty

And...please have your conversations with people you have and haven't blocked via PM, so we don't all have to read about your petty disputes.

Tiger Woods has cemented his place as the second best player ever. And that is by Tiger's standards - major wins.  I eagerly await future developments. I don't have to "believe in" Tiger, whatever that means.

Shame on you for even writing something like that. I have NO ONE blocked on this site and have not had a "petty dispute" with ANYONE. I had a disagreement with deasy, but that's normal. Isn't this a site to discuss our opinions on what's going on in the world of golf? Everyone is going to have different opinions.

Keep that kind of attitude up and you may be the first one I block.

[MrElculver2424]

Originally Posted by Tiger Spuds

He's only a youngin' lads, give him a break!

That said, some of what he said is obviously incorrect. To say Tiger's more naturally talented than Jack was is so, so wrong. To win 18 majors and finish his career with 116 professional wins overall with the technical swing 'flaws' Jack had was supremely impressive. His entire game was based on 'natural talent'. Even as an amateur, Tiger's swing was technically better. As someone else pointed on the previous page, Tiger himself doesn't consider himself a 'natural' talent. A lot of his success is down to hard work. Would Tiger even rank in the top 5 of the greatest ballstrikers of all time?

Thank you for backing me. Some people just get so overwhelmed and jump on you as soon as they see they disagree with you. I know what I said about him being "natural" was incorrect and admitted that, and still got bombarded for it.

Whether he is the best or not is an OPINION. I'm not denying that Jack has more wins than Tiger...and Jack was one hell of a golfer. But in my mind, in Tiger's prime, he was the best golfer of all time. That's an opinion, and I'm fine with people disagreeing...let's just do it POLITELY please!

[MrElculver2424]

I never got to see Jack play, so I apologize for making it sound like I wasn't giving him any credit. I never denied that he was a natural talent. And with all this school work, and my busy life (I'm in high school), I never had the time to sit and watch videos of Jack or look at stats.

With that said, let's try to be nice to each other. No reason to blow someone to pieces just because you disagree with them...that's why the world is a mess right now, because there are those kinds of people in it.

[MrElculver2424]

Originally Posted by Zwick

oha, I think this is the most senseless thread in the whole forum...

I sumarize the next pages for you:

Tiger is better! no way, Jack is better! but Tiger! no Jack! don't forget Jones!

That's not why I started it, but that's what people turned it into!

[utztech]

I think it is fun to discuss who is the best ever.  It is something that cannot ever be proved.  I personally think that Jack played against much weaker fields than Tiger.  That is why there were so many 2nds, and 3rds.  In my opinion Jack only had to beat a hand full of real contenders on any given week.  I will offer this to support my opinion:

Players with 4 or more majors who won majors against Jack:

Arnold Palmer - 7

Gary Player - 9

Peter Thomson - 5

Lee Trevino - 6

Raymond Floyd - 4

Tom Watson - 8

Seve Ballesteros - 5

Players with 4 or more majors who won majors against Tiger:

Phil Mickelson - 4

Now you might think that so many players with a lot of majors against Jack means that he was playing against better fields, but statistically the exact opposite is true.  The fact that so many players were able to win a lot of majors means the fields were weak.  These handful of great players were dominating everyone else.  So Jack really only had to beat a hand full of contenders for any given major, while Tiger has to beat a much larger number of real contenders.  In Tiger's time it is so much harder to dominate the field because the field is so much stronger.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by utztech

I think it is fun to discuss who is the best ever.  It is something that cannot ever be proved.  I personally think that Jack played against much weaker fields than Tiger.  That is why there were so many 2nds, and 3rds.  In my opinion Jack only had to beat a hand full of real contenders on any given week.  I will offer this to support my opinion:

Players with 4 or more majors who won majors against Jack:

Arnold Palmer - 7

Gary Player - 9

Peter Thomson - 5

Lee Trevino - 6

Raymond Floyd - 4

Tom Watson - 8

Seve Ballesteros - 5

Players with 4 or more majors who won majors against Tiger:

Phil Mickelson - 4

Now you might think that so many players with a lot of majors against Jack means that he was playing against better fields, but statistically the exact opposite is true.  The fact that so many players were able to win a lot of majors means the fields were weak.  These handful of great players were dominating everyone else.  So Jack really only had to beat a hand full of contenders for any given major, while Tiger has to beat a much larger number of real contenders.  In Tiger's time it is so much harder to dominate the field because the field is so much stronger.

Actually Peter Thomson won 4 of his 5 British Opens 4 years before Nicklaus even competed in his first. And Palmer only won 3 majors after Nicklaus turned professional.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by MrElculver2424

Shame on you for even writing something like that. I have NO ONE blocked on this site and have not had a "petty dispute" with ANYONE. I had a disagreement with deasy, but that's normal. Isn't this a site to discuss our opinions on what's going on in the world of golf? Everyone is going to have different opinions.

Keep that kind of attitude up and you may be the first one I block.

You might care to reread some threads that you've been in.

It's like a ping pong match.

Please block me.

[RichF]

Quote:

You almost have to laugh when this sort of thing is written.

Despite evidence to the contrary, folk like MrElculver will continue to talk in generalities about very specific things, and talk very specifically about general things.

He will then go blue in the face trying to defend the things he has written, when there is no defence for them.

It's like reading Wikipedia entries made by fans before they have been corrected.

Trotting lines out like "Tiger is the best" and "Tiger is the best ever" is a perfect way to set yourself up as a very naive golf fan with a narrow perspective.

If you want to know what "dominance is", look at Nicklaus' career over a period of 20 odd years.

And then, to write this gibberish: "Yes, the purest naturally talented golfer of all-time."  What can that possibly mean?

Then....the correction fom "most natural" to "purest".  Gawd give me strength....  Purest?????? If ever there was a weasel word in golf, that's it.

There are many players who you could say that about and have a decent argument.

I'll start with a few: Crenshaw, Tom Watson, Greg Norman. Tiger looks positively mechanical and ungainly against some of these guys.

Which golfers in the 40s, 50s and 60s did you grow up watching?  But then...nothing counted until big screen TVs and sycophantic commentators came along to hype things up.

Then we have the clincher "But a lot of credit is due to his dad, who helped him gain the mental toughness and skills."  Reads like something from a book about Tiger written by a 12 year old who did his research on the net over the space of five minutes.

Tiger's father was a complete and utter nutcase. And all the crap about making noises during his swing to balk him and put him off, didn't you ever notice how easily he is put off when things aren't going his way? Tiger's father was very likely the cause of Tiger having such astonishing arrogance at a young age and being such a hypocrite. He set himself up as some sort of prophet and claimed that Tiger was going to be the second coming.

And...please have your conversations with people you have and haven't blocked via PM, so we don't all have to read about your petty disputes.

Tiger Woods has cemented his place as the second best player ever. And that is by Tiger's standards - major wins.  I eagerly await future developments. I don't have to "believe in" Tiger, whatever that means.

But to be fair, there is a large % of people who purely watch Tiger Woods (and Tiger Woods alone ) because of these reasons and of course the introdcution of EA Sports' 'Tiger Woods PGA Golf' - it seems to be that their entire viewpoints are based on this.

[MSDOGS1976]

All you can really do is compare the records. Jack is the best based on that, as of now. Who knows, if you throw out the records and try to project what golfers from different eras would do with the same equipment, course conditions, etc.....Bobby Jones or some other golfer might be the best. But you can't do that just like you can't play a Vince Lombardi team against last year's Packer's team to see which is the best. The OP is a kid, Tiger is all he knows and it is his opinion. I don't agree, but I'm not a Tiger fan.

[iacas]

Not sure how a topic titled "future" got to talking about the past, but let's stick to the topic, eh? Pretty please? Thank you.