Tiger Will Never Be the GOAT???

[zipazoid]

No 'odd criteria' from me if Tiger hits 19. He will then be GOAT. Right now he's 2nd on my list. And, as I posted earlier, Tiger's done things Jack never did - winning a US Open by fifteen shots?

The case could be made that Tiger right now is GOAT. But in my mind, he needs the beat Jack's Major title first. It's Jack then Tiger, but one day it may be Tiger then Jack. There's really nobody else I would put up there.

So there's not much wavering with me. The 19 2nd-place finishes was just another example of Jack's dominance. Feel free to ignore that & just go with wins. That's also more than anyone else.

Now. To give props to other great players -

Hagen - Greatest match play player ever

Jones - Greatest amateur ever

Snead - Greatest never to with the US Open

Trevino - Greatest never to win The Masters

Palmer/Watson - Greatest never to win the PGA

Hogan - Greatest ball-striker ever

Nelson - Greatest year in history

So they're all great too. Just not 'OAT'

[brocks]

No 'odd criteria' from me if Tiger hits 19. He will then be GOAT. Right now he's 2nd on my list. And, as I posted earlier, Tiger's done things Jack never did - winning a US Open by fifteen shots? The case could be made that Tiger right now is GOAT. But in my mind, he needs the beat Jack's Major title first. It's Jack then Tiger, but one day it may be Tiger then Jack. There's really nobody else I would put up there. So there's not much wavering with me. The 19 2nd-place finishes was just another example of Jack's dominance. Feel free to ignore that & just go with wins. That's also more than anyone else. Now. To give props to other great players - Hagen - Greatest match play player ever Jones - Greatest amateur ever Snead - Greatest never to with the US Open Trevino - Greatest never to win The Masters Palmer/Watson - Greatest never to win the PGA Hogan - Greatest ball-striker ever Nelson - Greatest year in history So they're all great too. Just not 'OAT'

Fair enough. But suppose Tiger ends his career at 18. Which do you give more weight, Jack's second places, or Tiger's margins of victory?

[zipazoid]

As Ted Kennedy said, we'll drive off that bridge when we get there.

I think it will be a compelling debate under that scenario.

One thing to consider under that scenario is, they would actually be tied if you count US Amateur wins. Then it would become a 'quality of wins' debate. In that regard, yes, I would likely give the nod to Tiger. Again, he won a US Open by fifteen shots. That's unheard of. To me, that's more impressive than finishing second a lot.

My reason for invoking Jack's second-place finishes wasn't as it involved Tiger, but as for everyone else. Nobody else is even close to that. He won or was second in thirty-seven Majors.

[brocks]

As Ted Kennedy said, we'll drive off that bridge when we get there. I think it will be a compelling debate under that scenario. One thing to consider under that scenario is, they would actually be tied if you count US Amateur wins. Then it would become a 'quality of wins' debate. In that regard, yes, I would likely give the nod to Tiger. Again, he won a US Open by fifteen shots. That's unheard of. To me, that's more impressive than finishing second a lot. My reason for invoking Jack's second-place finishes wasn't as it involved Tiger, but as for everyone else. Nobody else is even close to that. He won or was second in thirty-seven Majors.

It's a legitimate stat. If they both have 18 majors, you have to come up with some kind of tiebreaker. It's not the one I favor, but it's legit. As for US Ams, Tiger has three (in a row, which even Bobby Jones never did, in a lot more tries) to Jack's two, so he would win on that basis.

[zipazoid]

Oh duh. You're right. I keep getting fixated on 19, not 18. If they both end up with 18, I would go with Tiger, tiebreaker being the 3-straight Ams & the quality of the major wins.

[brocks]

Actually I doubt we will need a tiebreaker; I think Tiger will get his five majors in the next five years. He's already striking the ball well enough to win, so it just comes down to whether he has a good putting week. And staying healthy.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by k-troop

and even won several Senior events.  He won the Masters at 46, which is a factor.

It's not exactly fair to consider Jack's post-prime career (which Tiger is just about to enter soon?) and then discount the pace at which Tiger has achieved his success, which would put him on pace to at least match Jack's post-prime success.

Brandon

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

It's not exactly fair to consider Jack's post-prime career (which Tiger is just about to enter soon?) and then discount the pace at which Tiger has achieved his success, which would put him on pace to at least match Jack's post-prime success.

Brandon

Of course it's fair. Tiger will get his chance when he gets there. His story is obviously not completely written yet.

Your key phrase is that Tiger is 'on pace' to get there. He's gotta finish it.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Of course it's fair. Tiger will get his chance when he gets there. His story is obviously not completely written yet.

Your key phrase is that Tiger is 'on pace' to get there. He's gotta finish it.

Then those folks can't say that Tiger will "not" be the GOAT.  It is absolutely not fair to compare a partial career to a full career and not account for what might happen in the future of the partial career.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Then those folks can't say that Tiger will "not" be the GOAT.  It is absolutely not fair to compare a partial career to a full career and not account for what might happen in the future of the partial career.

Well, they can't predict the future. So it's just an opinion which has no fact to base it upon.

The way I look at it is, Jack's the best & the guy that can supplant him is only 35 years old. And he has a good chance of doing so. That's as close to predicting the future as I will get.

[HarryVardon09]

If he wins two majors this year I think the discussions will lean heavily towards him being the best ever. He's not supposed to be dominant again in the minds of many, and if he can tear his game apart and rebuild it to a point where he's winning on the big stage consistently again I think most people will be on board. I love Golf history and would be hesitant to call Tiger the best ever but I definitely think we are headed that direction.

I would rank them as follows:

1. Jack Nicklaus - Greatest management golfer ever and was just a winner

2. Tiger Woods - Dominance has been unparalleled, and I'm considering ALL he has done for the game. It has changed beyond dramatically since he stormed onto the scene in 1997.

3. Bobby Jones - Champion at the core, his amazing run in 1930 bumps him up here.

4. Harry Vardon - Before you laugh, consider what he did: Rose from pure dirt, absolutely nothing, to the best golfer of his time. Came down with tuberculosis at a period in history where that meant certain death... and overcame it. He also won more British Opens despite the fact the TB attacked his right hand rendering 3 foot putts hell on earth in his latter years. He still has the most Open Championship victories to date.

5. Ben Hogan - A true practitioner of the game, he would edge out his nemesis Byron Nelson due to the fact he also had to overcome great difficulty and literally dug his game out of the dirt and played pure golf as good as anyone ever will.

Just my rankings, I apologize to the Arnold Palmer and Byron Nelson fans out there

[brocks]

Just my rankings, I apologize to the Arnold Palmer and Byron Nelson fans out there

Good list. I'd switch Tiger and Jack, but I can certainly see the case for Jack being the best.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by HarryVardon09

If he wins two majors this year I think the discussions will lean heavily towards him being the best ever. He's not supposed to be dominant again in the minds of many, and if he can tear his game apart and rebuild it to a point where he's winning on the big stage consistently again I think most people will be on board. I love Golf history and would be hesitant to call Tiger the best ever but I definitely think we are headed that direction.

I would rank them as follows:

1. Jack Nicklaus - Greatest management golfer ever and was just a winner

2. Tiger Woods - Dominance has been unparalleled, and I'm considering ALL he has done for the game. It has changed beyond dramatically since he stormed onto the scene in 1997.

3. Bobby Jones - Champion at the core, his amazing run in 1930 bumps him up here.

4. Harry Vardon - Before you laugh, consider what he did: Rose from pure dirt, absolutely nothing, to the best golfer of his time. Came down with tuberculosis at a period in history where that meant certain death... and overcame it. He also won more British Opens despite the fact the TB attacked his right hand rendering 3 foot putts hell on earth in his latter years. He still has the most Open Championship victories to date.

5. Ben Hogan - A true practitioner of the game, he would edge out his nemesis Byron Nelson due to the fact he also had to overcome great difficulty and literally dug his game out of the dirt and played pure golf as good as anyone ever will.

Just my rankings, I apologize to the Arnold Palmer and Byron Nelson fans out there

Good list. I would also apologize to the Tom Watson & Sam Snead fans out there as well. But it's a list I don't have any problem with...especially Vardon. He had a grip named after him!

A word on Palmer. Certainly the most beloved player in the game. But he was technically flawed, had questionable course management & lost more tournaments he should have won than any of the other greats. He should have easily had 12 majors if he just wouldn't have been so damn stubborn. I know that's gonna set me up for criticism but so be it. He hit the ball hard, found it & hit it hard again...played the game at one speed. Losing the 1966 US Open with a 7 shot lead with nine to play is simply inexcusable if you want to be in the discussion of GOAT.

So, in my mind, no apologies needed for not having Palmer in the top 5. He's not deserving.

I like your 1 thru 5. I'd put these as 6-10:

6. Sam Snead. Most natural swing in the history of the game. Won everything but the biggie.

7. Byron Nelson. 11 straight wins will never be broken. Was the first 'modern swing' player that used leg power.

8. Gary Player. Probably a bit too low a ranking for the Ambassador of the game.

9. Tom Watson. To think he was once known as a choker. Damn near won his 6th British at age 59. Never won the PGA, thus the low ranking.

10. Lee Trevino. Next to Hogan, best ball-striker on the game. If he only could have gotten his head straight about The Masters.

[brocks]

Good list. I would also apologize to the Tom Watson & Sam Snead fans out there as well. But it's a list I don't have any problem with...especially Vardon. He had a grip named after him! A word on Palmer. Certainly the most beloved player in the game. But he was technically flawed, had questionable course management & lost more tournaments he should have won than any of the other greats. He should have easily had 12 majors if he just wouldn't have been so damn stubborn. I know that's gonna set me up for criticism but so be it. He hit the ball hard, found it & hit it hard again...played the game at one speed. Losing the 1966 US Open with a 7 shot lead with nine to play is simply inexcusable if you want to be in the discussion of GOAT. So, in my mind, no apologies needed for not having Palmer in the top 5. He's not deserving. I like your 1 thru 5. I'd put these as 6-10: 6. Sam Snead. Most natural swing in the history of the game. Won everything but the biggie. 7. Byron Nelson. 11 straight wins will never be broken. Was the first 'modern swing' player that used leg power. 8. Gary Player. Probably a bit too low a ranking for the Ambassador of the game. 9. Tom Watson. To think he was once known as a choker. Damn near won his 6th British at age 59. Never won the PGA, thus the low ranking. 10. Lee Trevino. Next to Hogan, best ball-striker on the game. If he only could have gotten his head straight about The Masters.

Very good comments. The only quibble I have is about the PGA. I can understand not winning one of the other three majors indicating some degree of an incomplete game, but the PGA doesn't really have a characteristic course type like the other three, so it seems to be just bad luck that Arnie and Watson never won it.

[jhwmusic]

Holy smokes, Brocks! I definitely agree with a lot of what you are saying, and you are obviously a very knowledgable guy... but reading a few of your posts on page 10 are like doing homework. ha ha! Just playing with you. But seriously, you did make some really good points. . :-D

[blakev]

I third that list, but would have switched Hogan and Snead. In those days match play was very important and Snead beat Hogan in 3 important head-to-head matches and Hogan never beat him in match play. In Snead's book "education of a golfer" you can sort of tell Snead considers himself better than Vardon (he was justifiably proud of being the first really long and straight hitter in Pro golf) but I infer he would have considered Jones to have a better record than his own because of the majors. He may even have considered Sarazen as better than himself too, seeing as he had accomplished the career grand slam, something which eluded Snead. But that's how Snead wrote about it, writing about (and from) his era, we are a ways forward in time from then, and I myself would most likely agree someone like Player is on the "top 10" list rather than Sarazen.

And I gotta admit: if Woods gets to Nicklaus' major total, and especially, if we see Tiger winning pretty regularly in his 40s, then I'm putting Tiger on top (that'll make my dad happy). And if Woods beats the total, no questions asked: to me he'll have become number one. Until someone comes along to beat him!