Tiger Will Never Be the GOAT???

[iacas]

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

I said that the comments about the Majors referred to other posts in the feed (not necessarily at you). But while we are on that subject, why don't you explain your position on Tiger as I don't seem to get it....

I've had more logical discussions with my child, and I've shared my thoughts on Tiger vs. Jack plenty of times. In two words (and one symbol): Jack > Tiger. Move on.

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

It just seems odd to me that the two guys that happen to have the best golfing minds (Jack and Tiger, just in case...) happen to have won more than anybody else.

Circular logic is circular. You're looking at their wins and saying they're the two best golfing minds ever. The best golfing mind of all time might belong to a guy who didn't have the athleticism to capitalize on it. Hell, the greatest golfing mind of all time might belong to some 5 handicapper from 1974 for all you know. You can't possibly know who has the "greatest golfing mind" because the mind is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to playing golf really well.

[brocks]

I don't follow your fuzzy math, so I'll just ask a simple question:  During Woods' reign at the top of the golf world, was there anybody that came even remotely close to Tom Watson's record?

No. But Tiger's reign at the top of the golf world ended when he was 33, and Tom Watson won his first major when Jack was 35. You are falling into the common trap of comparing a 25-year career with one half as long. Maybe in 15 years, McIlroy will have a record to rival Watson's. [quote] Does anyone come remotely close to Gary Player's?  How about Lee Trevino's?  These are the people that Nicklaus had to beat to get his majors.  He didn't do it every time, but he did it more than anyone else.[/quote] Well, no, he didn't. You are falling into another common trap of compressing Jack's 25 years into one or two, and acting like he battled Player or Watson or Trevino down the stretch almost every time he won a major. The fact is, those three guys finished second to Jack in a major one time. Not once each. Just one, combined grand total for the three of them. It was Gary Player at the 1965 Masters, and that happened to be Jack's greatest performance, the one he won by nine shots, so there was really no pressure from Player or anybody else. He never finished second to Jack at any other major, and Watson and Trevino never did at all. Glowing memories are great, but they are no substitute for the facts.

[brocks]

"It has always been my goal to pass Jack," says Woods, who has won 14 majors. "From well before I turned pro, that's what I've had my eyes set on in terms of golf. … I absolutely want to do it. The benchmark and gold standard in this sport is 18."

I think Tiger's the best golfer ever, but I don't think he's the smartest. But since you seem to value Tiger's opinion so highly, would you go along with him if he suddenly decided that the NEW gold standard should be WGC's, rather than majors? Nobody cared who had the most pro majors when Jack started his career. The record was held by Walter Hagen, but nobody considered him the best golfer of all time, just as nobody considers him the third best of all time today. And right after Jack won his first Masters, he told the press that he hoped to become the best golfer ever, and how he intended to go about doing that --- he had to break Sam Snead's record for most career wins. Ten or so years later, Sam's "most wins" record still looked out of reach, but Jack had passed Walter Hagen for most pro majors, and was about to pass Bobby Jones for most total majors. And Jack, with the able assistance of his pal Dan Jenkins, the chief golf writer for Sports Illustrated at a time when that was still influential, started lobbying to get the gold standard changed to "most majors." And damned if they didn't pull it off. It was totally unfair. Vardon played only one major per year most years. Hagen hit his prime before the PGA was founded, long before the Masters was founded, and at a time when a round trip to the Open took almost a month. He also had a bunch of majors cancelled during his prime for WW I. Snead, Nelson, and Hogan had a bunch cancelled for WW II. And none of those three considered the Open important enough to include in their regular schedule. They each played it just once during their primes. So if Jack can come up with a standard that is unfair to the greats who played before him, why can't Tiger do the same, and say WGC's are the new standard?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

"It has always been my goal to pass Jack," says Woods, who has won 14 majors. "From well before I turned pro, that's what I've had my eyes set on in terms of golf. … I absolutely want to do it. The benchmark and gold standard in this sport is 18."

I think Tiger's the best golfer ever, but I don't think he's the smartest.

But since you seem to value Tiger's opinion so highly, would you go along with him if he suddenly decided that the NEW gold standard should be WGC's, rather than majors?

Nobody cared who had the most pro majors when Jack started his career. The record was held by Walter Hagen, but nobody considered him the best golfer of all time, just as nobody considers him the third best of all time today. And right after Jack won his first Masters, he told the press that he hoped to become the best golfer ever, and how he intended to go about doing that --- he had to break Sam Snead's record for most career wins.

Ten or so years later, Sam's "most wins" record still looked out of reach, but Jack had passed Walter Hagen for most pro majors, and was about to pass Bobby Jones for most total majors. And Jack, with the able assistance of his pal Dan Jenkins, the chief golf writer for Sports Illustrated at a time when that was still influential, started lobbying to get the gold standard changed to "most majors." And damned if they didn't pull it off.

It was totally unfair. Vardon played only one major per year most years. Hagen hit his prime before the PGA was founded, long before the Masters was founded, and at a time when a round trip to the Open took almost a month. He also had a bunch of majors cancelled during his prime for WW I. Snead, Nelson, and Hogan had a bunch cancelled for WW II. And none of those three considered the Open important enough to include in their regular schedule. They each played it just once during their primes.

So if Jack can come up with a standard that is unfair to the greats who played before him, why can't Tiger do the same, and say WGC's are the new standard?

I thought you were copying and pasting this from somewhere until your comment about the British Open. It's hard to be in two places at once - even for Ben Hogan.

[Gioguy21]

jesus. greatest of all time. beat that.
signed,
tim tebow



but seriously, tiger in my eyes (since i've never seen jack play in person while in his hay-day) is the greatest of all time. not because of numbers exactly, but because he himself was cause for such a drastic influx of fans, media, and overall impact on the game of golf. yes, jack has more majors, yes, snead has more wins...but how many people, across the globe, across writing boards, discussions (i know the chronological differences in technology have impacted this as well, but i digress), and overall atmosphere to the game of golf...as tiger woods? no one. when people put on red polos heading to the course, do they not think of tiger? i'm sure you don't think of 'yes sir' as you put on a yellow one...the man has single-handedly had influence on culture, the sport itself, marketing, and brand (whether nike or TW) than any person in i believe, the history of (any)sport aside from michael jordan. that to ME is why he is the greatest of all time, at least as a golfer. certainly not as a sportsman, certainly not as a family man...but TO ME, the basis above, along with his dominance in the game through his earlier years...makes it.

[brocks]

I thought you were copying and pasting this from somewhere until your comment about the British Open. It's hard to be in two places at once - even for Ben Hogan.

It's a common misconception that Hogan was prevented from attempting a Grand Slam because the PGA and Open overlapped. It's true that they conflicted in 1953, when Hogan won three majors (NOT the first three majors, because the Open was the fourth major that year), but that was one of only two years that has happened since WW II. In fact, they were separated by seven weeks the year Sam Snead won the Open. Hogan wouldn't have entered the PGA in 1953 no matter when it was scheduled. The US and British Opens of that era had a 36-hole final day, and Hogan could barely manage that on his shattered legs. The match play format the PGA used prior to 1958 required the winner to play several 36-hole days in a row, and Hogan's legs simply weren't up to that, so he never played the PGA during the 50's. He could have played the Open every year if he had wanted to. Look it up.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Gioguy21

jesus. greatest of all time. beat that.

signed,

tim tebow

but seriously, tiger in my eyes (since i've never seen jack play in person while in his hay-day) is the greatest of all time. not because of numbers exactly, but because he himself was cause for such a drastic influx of fans, media, and overall impact on the game of golf. yes, jack has more majors, yes, snead has more wins...but how many people, across the globe, across writing boards, discussions (i know the chronological differences in technology have impacted this as well, but i digress), and overall atmosphere to the game of golf...as tiger woods? no one. when people put on red polos heading to the course, do they not think of tiger? i'm sure you don't think of 'yes sir' as you put on a yellow one...the man has single-handedly had influence on culture, the sport itself, marketing, and brand (whether nike or TW) than any person in i believe, the history of (any)sport aside from michael jordan. that to ME is why he is the greatest of all time, at least as a golfer. certainly not as a sportsman, certainly not as a family man...but TO ME, the basis above, along with his dominance in the game through his earlier years...makes it.

I read that post then saw the way you arrange clubs in a 14-way bag and it all comes together.

[Gioguy21]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I read that post then saw the way you arrange clubs in a 14-way bag and it all comes together.

...please sean, elaborate on that. after all my post was that of opinion, and, for you to make a judgement based on my opinion and the way i arrange my clubs is asinine. now, i've seen on quite a few threads where your snide comments go unnoticed but, i have to ask, are you a great almighty? clearly your opinion on this matter is greater than any others. let whatever he say (in this case, you) be the truth.

[Jmdmbike]

It's tough in any sport to pick the GOAT across eras - so many differences. Always subjectivity involved in these kind of debates, which is part of what makes them so interesting. To me, Tiger has had the most impact on the game, and he's not done yet. If he surpasses Jack's 18, that's enough for me to say GOAT. Until the Next One comes along.......as they inevitably will.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Gioguy21

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I read that post then saw the way you arrange clubs in a 14-way bag and it all comes together.

...please sean, elaborate on that. after all my post was that of opinion, and, for you to make a judgement based on my opinion and the way i arrange my clubs is asinine. now, i've seen on quite a few threads where your snide comments go unnoticed but, i have to ask, are you a great almighty? clearly your opinion on this matter is greater than any others. let whatever he say (in this case, you) be the truth.

Your take on Tiger is like your 14-way bag setup - interesting, somewhat unique, and not something that would have ever occurred to me.

I don't share your opinion but I respect it because it seems honest. You don't care for me and that's A-okay.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I thought you were copying and pasting this from somewhere until your comment about the British Open. It's hard to be in two places at once - even for Ben Hogan.

It's a common misconception that Hogan was prevented from attempting a Grand Slam because the PGA and Open overlapped. It's true that they conflicted in 1953, when Hogan won three majors (NOT the first three majors, because the Open was the fourth major that year), but that was one of only two years that has happened since WW II. In fact, they were separated by seven weeks the year Sam Snead won the Open.

Hogan wouldn't have entered the PGA in 1953 no matter when it was scheduled. The US and British Opens of that era had a 36-hole final day, and Hogan could barely manage that on his shattered legs. The match play format the PGA used prior to 1958 required the winner to play several 36-hole days in a row, and Hogan's legs simply weren't up to that, so he never played the PGA during the 50's. He could have played the Open every year if he had wanted to. Look it up.

So that explains Hogan's lone appearance.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

So that explains Hogan's lone appearance.

The only thing that explains Hogan's lone appearance is that the British Open was not considered a very important event on this side of the pond given the extreme cost and time it took to play.  Snead had none of the physical issues that applied to Hogan yet in his lengthy career he played the British Open exactly 3 times.  Byron Nelson played it once. How impotant would we consider an event that in 25 years Tiger, Phil, and Vijay played 5 times combined?

It wasn't until Arnie started playing it regularly that it regained some of its luster.

[StephenGSX]

Trying to comment to several people.....

To Brocks,

Not exactly sure who your historian is, but I know that Jones got a ticker-tape parade in '33 (Nickalus age -7) for winning the grand slam (that was for the 4 Majors in case you didn't know) and Hogan got one in '53 (Nicklaus age 13) for the "triple crown." So I am not sure that the majors became important because of Dan Jenkins, but I guess you are!

Also, here are some dates when some players turned pro.

Nicklaus 1961

Player 1956

Trevino 1960

Watson 1971

Casper 1954

Palmer 1954

Even though circumstances had it that someone on this list finished second only once to Nicklaus in a major (still haven't taken the time to verify--however, I know that Palmer did as well as Player so you are already wrong), that does not mean that Jack did not have to beat them in order to win his majors.  Please help me understand how you don't see the competition that Nicklaus faced. (not only in memory, but in fact--as you say).

Also, the interesting thing about Tiger is that he DOESN'T say that the WGC's are as important as the Majors. Gee, I wonder why?! (actually, I don't, that's just sarcasm)

To X129

You are right, Nicklaus wasn't "much better" than Watson or Trevino or Player or Palmer. He was simply BETTER. And that is all it takes! Tiger is A LOT better than the guys today, and STILL can't win as many majors! Hmmmmm!

[brocks]

To Brocks,   Not exactly sure who your historian is, but I know that Jones got a ticker-tape parade in '33 (Nickalus age -7) for winning the grand slam (that was for the 4 Majors in case you didn't know)

I really appreciate you taking the time to lend some of your vast knowledge of golf history to us. But I have a few corrections. Jones never got a ticker-tape parade for winning the Grand Slam, and he certainly didn't win it in 1933. He got a parade in 1926, for winning the British Open (which was still a big deal back then), and he got another in 1930, for winning the British Open and Amateur. The 1930 parade took place BEFORE he won the US Open and Amateur that year. By the way, ticker-tape parades were not awarded after in-depth research by the Cabinet, Supreme Court, and National Academy of Sciences. They were thrown when the mayor and his cronies felt like it, and when it was convenient. In the case of Jones, it was convenient to do it after his British wins, because the ship he returned in docked in NYC. To show you what a big deal ticker-tape parades were, there were five of them in 1930, honoring six people. In chronological order, they were: 1) Jacques de Dampierre 2) Julio Prestes de Albuquerque 3) Richard Byrd 4) Bobby Jones 5) Captain Dieudonne Coste and Maurice Bellonte. Richard Byrd got a total of three ticker-tape parades for flying his plane over various polar regions (refuting the popular misconception that Jones is the only man to ever get two). Nobody alive has ever heard of the other four people, and probably nobody cheering for them in the 1930 parades had, either, but when there is no TV, you get your entertainment where you can. [quote] and Hogan got one in '53 (Nicklaus age 13) for the "triple crown." So I am not sure that the majors became important because of Dan Jenkins, but I guess you are!  [/quote] The Open was at its nadir in 1953. I know this is asking a lot, but think about it --- if the Open was so important in the early 50's, why didn't the PGA even bother to avoid schedule conflicts with it? By that standard, the Open was about as important as the Reno-Tahoe is today, and not as important as the John Deere. Hogan played it because he was physically unable to play the PGA, but the fact that he never returned, not even to defend his title after the people of Scotland had all but adopted him, shows that he thought once was more than enough. He did get a parade, not so much because the Open mattered to anyone but golf historians, but because he was a big celebrity following the success of the greatest golf movie of all time, "Follow the Sun." Again, the fact that he returned to America via NYC made it convenient to have the parade at that time. But for most Americans, the British Open was not very important. That's just a fact. You can verify it for yourself by seeing how often Nelson, Snead, and Hogan played it. There were only two years, namely 1951 and 1953, where it conflicted with the PGA, and a few minor pros of the post-war era, like Johnny Bulla, played both events several years, so obviously it could be done. But it simply wasn't worth the time and effort for the top pros. Even Arnie, who rescued it from obscurity, never played it in the 50's. Jack Nicklaus was the first golfer in history to play all four majors every year of his pro career, until he became too old to do so. And it worked the other way, too. Peter Thomson, five time Open winner and probably one of the top five players in the world from 1954 to 1965, rarely played the US majors during that period. Four-time Open champ Bobby Locke may have been THE best player in the world in the early 50's, but he was actually banned by the PGA, and seldom played the US majors. So yes, majors were important, but they were not the standard of greatness --- at least, not in the minds of the pros. "Most pro majors" was not considered the sole measure of greatness in golf until Nicklaus and Jenkins lobbied to make it so. You can refute me by finding a single cite that shows most people, or even a large minority, considered Walter Hagen the greatest golfer, or even the second greatest, in any year after WW II. [quote]  Even though circumstances had it that someone on this list finished second only once to Nicklaus in a major (still haven't taken the time to verify--however, I know that Palmer did as well as Player so you are already wrong),[/quote] I was responding to a post that specifically named Player, Trevino, and Watson, and I specified those three as combining for a total of one time as runner-up to Jack in a major. It's true that Palmer also did, most famously in Jack's very first win, but nobody was talking about him. [quote] that does not mean that Jack did not have to beat them in order to win his majors.[/quote] As most people understood, we were talking about beating them in the pressure of a head to head battle, not winning a major after they finished 25th. [quote]  Please help me understand how you don't see the competition that Nicklaus faced. (not only in memory, but in fact--as you say). [/quote] I am happy to acknowledge the great players Jack faced, including some who rarely get their due today, like Billy Casper, who IMO was better than any of the "Big Three" in the late 60's, and Bruce Crampton, who never won a major, but finished second to Jack four times, more than anybody else. But I also thoroughly agree with the analysis that Jack himself wrote in his 1996 autobiography, quoted in another post by Turtleback, where he said that because of the much deeper talent, the middle of the pack of the 1996 PGA Tour was as good as the top players of his day. And players have only gotten stronger since then. By the way, I do not think it's obvious that Tiger is better than Jack because athletes in other sports have gotten measurably better. Tiger and Jack are both outliers; they can't be measured by what the average does. It's my opinion that Tiger was better, but it's just an opinion. But I DO think it's obvious that Tiger's competition was better than Jack's. If not, golf is the only sport in history where the quality of play has gone down, in spite of much larger talent pools, and much bigger money.   [quote] Also, the interesting thing about Tiger is that he DOESN'T say that the WGC's are as important as the Majors. Gee, I wonder why?! (actually, I don't, that's just sarcasm)[/quote] Neither did I. I was making what adults call an analogy.

[sean_miller]

Does it only count as beating a rival when the rival finishes in second place? If the rival finishes a spot or two lower he wasn't beaten or he wasn't a rival?

[brocks]

Does it only count as beating a rival when the rival finishes in second place? If the rival finishes a spot or two lower he wasn't beaten or he wasn't a rival?

I am assuming that people have the intelligence to distinguish between Keegan Bradley beating Tiger Woods at the 2011 PGA, where Tiger missed the cut, and YE Yang beating Tiger in the 2009 PGA, when they battled head to head in the last group on Sunday. Yes, Bradley "beat" Tiger, but come on. Any ten-year old can see the difference. I don't insist that Jack actually had to be in the same group as Trevino for it to count as a battle, but I do think that Trevino had to be somewhere on the leaderboard with a chance to win. The guy I was responding to was making a point of how tough it was for Jack to win majors because he had to beat the likes of Watson, Player, and Trevino to do it. But the fact is, anybody with a PGA card could have beaten those three when they had an off week, just as anybody with a PGA card today can beat Tiger when he has a bad week. The significance of beating a big name is when you beat him at his best, and the fact is that Jack didn't do that as often as people like to think. Jack had Arnie's number when they actually battled head to head, but Watson had Jack's number. That doesn't mean Watson was the better player all-time, if you define "better" as playing well enough to win a major more consistently than anyone else, but it does mean that the rosy-hued memories of Jack beating a Hall of Famer down the stretch every week are a bit exaggerated. People act like Jack faced down Palmer, Casper, Player, Trevino, and Watson every week, but he didn't. They didn't peak at the same time. Palmer's major-winning years were almost over when Jack turned pro. He won his last major in 1964. Casper's peak was the late 60's, and he was the best golfer in the world at that time, better than Jack. And Watson was better than Jack from the mid-70's on. Jack was one of the best golfers in the world for nearly 25 years, but he was THE hands-down, no-discussion, best player in the world only about six of those years. Tiger has been far and away the best player in the world almost twice as many years. And to get back to the main point, just like Tiger, Jack didn't always have to beat a big name to win a major. Sometimes he had to beat Arnie, but other times he had to beat the likes of Dave Ragan, or Dave Thomas, or Simon Owen, all of whom finished second to Jack in majors, and all of whom have to buy a ticket to get into the Hall of Fame. I can't explain it any better than that. Anybody who wants to have a serious discussion will understand it. People who want to pretend they don't are welcome to have fun playing with themselves.

[Harmonious]

Brocks - You started the thread, in what I originally thought was an attempt to start an intelligent conversation on your topic.  You are now using it to belittle and insult anyone who responds to you.  If you want people to take you seriously (because you do seem to have a sincere interest in this one topic at least), don't be a douche.

[brocks]

IMO you are throwing the flag at the guy who hits back (StephenGSX especially went out of his way to be snide, as well as wrong), but you have a point. I actually tried to edit my last post to change the last line, but it was too late. I apologize to the group.