Tiger Will Never Be the GOAT???

[MiniBlueDragon]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

The very concept of a GOAT is that it will change. That change could be over several years or several decades. To me Tiger was the GOAT but not so any more. Could he be again? Maybe but no guarantees I'm afraid. Nicklaus was. Hogan was. Woods was. Who is it now though?

Couldn't disagree with this more.  The Greatest of All Time is just that--there has never been anyone better.  Ever.  The first guy to ever play golf was the greatest of all time.  Then he taught the game to three other guys, and the best in that foursome was the greatest of all time.  And then there was Tom Morris, and then maybe Harry Vardon.  Since then, the Greatest was probably Bobby Jones, then Jack.  (Arguable that Hogan supplanted Mr. Jones, but I'm not convinced.)

If Tiger "was" the greatest ever, then he still is--because certainly there is no one playing the game right now who is even close.  It's not like Jack stopped being the Greatest of all Time from 1987-1998 and was supplanted by whoever was #1 at the time (Norman?  Faldo?)

Couldn't disagree with the concept of the GOAT changing when someone better comes along or that Tiger isn't the GOAT currently?

The concept I think you agree with because you've basically stated exactly what I did; that the GOAT mantle is passed to whoever surpasses the current GOAT in whatever context is being used to judge (which in itself is a discussion)

Regarding Tiger it's subjective too. What are you using to say he's currently the greatest of all time? Major wins? Total wins? Least putts? Most money paid?

[jhwmusic]

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

Couldn't disagree with the concept of the GOAT changing when someone better comes along or that Tiger isn't the GOAT currently?

The concept I think you agree with because you've basically stated exactly what I did; that the GOAT mantle is passed to whoever surpasses the current GOAT in whatever context is being used to judge (which in itself is a discussion)

Regarding Tiger it's subjective too. What are you using to say he's currently the greatest of all time? Major wins? Total wins? Least putts? Most money paid?

You are giving me a headache!..  Who judges it by least putts?  And money paid?...everyone who knows anything knows that money has nothing to do with it...purses aren't comparable.  I agree that the criteria for judging a GOAT is debatable but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.  You said that Tiger is no longer your GOAT!  we were basically asking WHY??  What made you change your mind?  Does your mind change based on his personal life or what?   Because I don't see anyone else doing anything that could change your mind.   You are just trying to argue to argue and talking in circles...  I'm done!

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

Couldn't disagree with the concept of the GOAT changing when someone better comes along or that Tiger isn't the GOAT currently?

The concept I think you agree with because you've basically stated exactly what I did; that the GOAT mantle is passed to whoever surpasses the current GOAT in whatever context is being used to judge (which in itself is a discussion)

Regarding Tiger it's subjective too. What are you using to say he's currently the greatest of all time? Major wins? Total wins? Least putts? Most money paid?

I didn't say Tiger was the GOAT.  You said he was, but he's not now.  That would imply that Luke Donald is now the Greatest Golfer of All Time.  The best there has ever been.  That's just ridiculous.  If Tiger earned the title of "The Greatest of All Time" based on his body of work from 1993-2008, then he still is.

I'm not saying Tiger is the best ever--I'm undecided on the point.  I'm certainly saying that if it is a fact that he was the greatest ever, then he must still be.

[jhwmusic]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I didn't say Tiger was the GOAT.  You said he was, but he's not now.  That would imply that Luke Donald is now the Greatest Golfer of All Time.  The best there has ever been.  That's just ridiculous.  If Tiger earned the title of "The Greatest of All Time" based on his body of work from 1993-2008, then he still is.

I'm not saying Tiger is the best ever--I'm undecided on the point.  I'm certainly saying that if it is a fact that he was the greatest ever, then he must still be.

I'm with K-troop!  Couldn't have said it better myself.  Dragon boy is gonna give me an aneurysm!

[zipazoid]

Jack: 18 Majors.

Tiger: 14 Majors.

'nuff said.

[x129]

Snead 83 wins

Jack 73 wins.

'nuff said

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Jack: 18 Majors.

Tiger: 14 Majors.

'nuff said.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Jack: 18 Majors.

Tiger: 14 Majors.

'nuff said.

Originally Posted by x129

Snead 83 wins

Jack 73 wins.

'nuff said

Tiger: 16 WGC's

Jack: 0 WGC's

Snead: 0 WGC's

Gee this is a fun game.  It doesn't even involve having to think!

Oops, I guess I'm not very good at this.  I forgot to add:

'nuff said.

[MiniBlueDragon]

You know what, Pinky & Perky; I really don't care for the attitude or aggression you both seem to have adopted over a single post made by me do I'm done. Bye.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Tiger: 16 WGC's

Jack: 0 WGC's

Snead: 0 WGC's

Gee this is a fun game.  It doesn't even involve having to think!

Oops, I guess I'm not very good at this.  I forgot to add:

'nuff said.

Wow. Good stat. I didn't realize that Jack and Sam played so poorly in the WGC events. It's almost as if  there weren't any back then.

But that can't be the case. Surely you wouldn't have made such a vacuous comparison.

But then again, you did warn us that you're not very good at this.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

You know what, Pinky & Perky; I really don't care for the attitude or aggression you both seem to have adopted over a single post made by me do I'm done. Bye.

Not aggression, and I don't know who Pinky and Perky are.  You made a comment on a discussion forum.  People read those comments, think about them, and respond.  If they think you're wrong, or you've missed something, then they explain why.  That's how this works.

Typically, they try to do so without calling others names.  I'm sure I've been called worse, but again--I'm not British, so I've not much of a clue what exactly I'm being called.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Wow. Good stat. I didn't realize that Jack and Sam played so poorly in the WGC events. It's almost as if  there weren't any back then.

But that can't be the case. Surely you wouldn't have made such a vacuous comparison.

But then again, you did warn us that you're not very good at this.

Like the vacuous comparison by which Jack took it away from Snead when effectively he had 33% more majors to play in and that wasn't even the standard at the time?

Vacuous is as vacuous does.

ANY post that attempts to reduce something to one little factoid and then shut off all further discussion with "'nuff said" deserves whatever it gets.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

You know what, Pinky & Perky; I really don't care for the attitude or aggression you both seem to have adopted over a single post made by me do I'm done. Bye.

You kind of missed the whole point that GOAT means Greatest Of ALL Time.  You were treating it as best player right now.  You wrote:

Quote:

The very concept of a GOAT is that it will change. That change could be over several years or several decades. To me Tiger was the GOAT but not so any more. Could he be again? Maybe but no guarantees I'm afraid. Nicklaus was. Hogan was. Woods was. Who is it now though?

If, as your post says Tiger was the GOAT, he would have to remain the GOAT until someone else surpasses him as greatest of ALL TIME.  NO ONE could BE the GOAT and then cease to be the GOAT without someone else surpassing them in some career based measurement (which itself is open to debate).  He can't stop being GOAT without someone else assuming the mantle and there simply is no remotely credible candidate.  Once we anoint someone the GOAT they remain the GOAT until some new guy comes along and surpasses them.

(And for anyone who would say Jack, I would say fine, then, that is not an unreasonable opinion  But if Jack is the GOAT then Tiger never was the GOAT.  So that doesn't really contradict my point above.)

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Couldn't disagree with this more.  The Greatest of All Time is just that--there has never been anyone better.  Ever.  The first guy to ever play golf was the greatest of all time.  Then he taught the game to three other guys, and the best in that foursome was the greatest of all time.  And then there was Tom Morris, and then maybe Harry Vardon.  Since then, the Greatest was probably Bobby Jones, then Jack.  (Arguable that Hogan supplanted Mr. Jones, but I'm not convinced.)

If Tiger "was" the greatest ever, then he still is--because certainly there is no one playing the game right now who is even close.  It's not like Jack stopped being the Greatest of all Time from 1987-1998 and was supplanted by whoever was #1 at the time (Norman?  Faldo?)

I am going to start my own sport and then become the GOAT until I teach it to you guys and then you beat me then you can be the GOAT.  The bolded above is probably the best comment on this whole thread. He would have been world number one as well.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Like the vacuous comparison by which Jack took it away from Snead when effectively he had 33% more majors to play in and that wasn't even the standard at the time?

Vacuous is as vacuous does.

ANY post that attempts to reduce something to one little factoid and then shut off all further discussion with "'nuff said" deserves whatever it gets.

Uh huh. Even when that "one little factoid" happens to be the measuring stick used to define greatness in this sport?

Far as the 'nuff said' it was meant to imply, what else really matters other than Major wins in determining the greatest? Greens in freekin' regulation?

And last I checked, Snead had four Majors every year just like Jack did, at least after The Masters started in 1934 - when Snead was, I believe, 22 years old. So if you're looking for that level playing field for comparison, there you go. If Sam didn't want to play in the British (where I assume your '33% more' comes from), that ain't Jack's fault.

But okay. Let's say that Jack had 33% more chances than Sam. Therefore, for Sam to be on the same level, then he would be 33% behind Jack in Majors' right? He would have 12 Majors, right? He had 7. Including no US Opens. If you've never won the US Open you can't even be in the discussion of GOAT. Snead gets the title of Greatest to never with the US Open. But of all time? Nope.

So I'll stand by my one little factoid, thank you. But to be sure you don't think I was trying to shut down further discussion, by all means. Keep debating. There was no intent to stop you all from continuing. Just telling you what decides it for me - Jack 18.

And instead of ending with what can appear as an inflammatory 'niff said', I'll soften it by saying, what more really needs to be said? Until someone hits 19, it's Jack.

[brocks]

But okay. Let's say that Jack had 33% more chances than Sam. Therefore, for Sam to be on the same level, then he would be 33% behind Jack in Majors' right? He would have 12 Majors, right? He had 7. Including no US Opens.

You missed TB's other point, which was that the standard of greatness changed. Many considered Sammy the greatest by virtue of his PGA win total, not his major total. Nobody has surpassed his PGA win total yet. I'd be surprised if that's true five years from now, though. The record for most professional major wins that Jack broke was set, not by Snead, but by Walter Hagen, who had 11. And he had only about half as many opportunities to play majors in his prime as Jack did. Hagen won the US Open two years before the first PGA Championship was played, and 20 years before the first Masters was played. And playing in the Open was so time-consuming and expensive (not to mention it being cancelled for five years during WW I) that he only played it 8 times before he turned 40 (winning four of those 8). So by your logic, we should give Hagen 22 majors, and say he's the GOAT. But nobody does. More remarkably, almost nobody said he was the GOAT even before Jack broke his record. So where does that put your little factoid?

[zipazoid]

Hey look. If you want to rename all-time Major wins as 'my little factoid' feel free. Does a tremendous disservice to all the men who have won Majors to trivialize such accomplishments, but whatever - 'And the winner of 2011 US 'zipazoids little factoid' Open, Rory McIlroy'. Major wins. It's what they all play for; well at least all the greats.

It seems I deal with this time & again on this board, with people that want to nuance all the fun out of something. So fine. Work the math differently & it's Hagen if that's what you want to go with. Say it's Jones if you want since he was an amateur beating pros. Say it's Tiger since he did his 14 in a 12-year period. Say it's Snead because he won more tour events, including one 8 times (Greensboro). I tend to cut to the chase.

And, don't forget that not only did Jack win 18 Majors, he was runner-up 19 times. And won two US Amateurs, which are included in Jones' total. His record speaks for itself, and it would have to be a pretty damn compelling argument to convince me (and many others) that someone else should be GOAT instead of him. Vardon won twice as many British Opens as Jack - so, what - he's twice as good as Jack on British soil? Nuance it to death if that's what gets y'all thru the night, but at the end of the day, Jack 18 (20 if you count the Amateurs).

Yes turtleback you're right. Some folks refuse to actually think.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipazoid

But okay. Let's say that Jack had 33% more chances than Sam. Therefore, for Sam to be on the same level, then he would be 33% behind Jack in Majors' right? He would have 12 Majors, right? He had 7. Including no US Opens.

You missed TB's other point, which was that the standard of greatness changed. Many considered Sammy the greatest by virtue of his PGA win total, not his major total. Nobody has surpassed his PGA win total yet. I'd be surprised if that's true five years from now, though.

The record for most professional major wins that Jack broke was set, not by Snead, but by Walter Hagen, who had 11. And he had only about half as many opportunities to play majors in his prime as Jack did. Hagen won the US Open two years before the first PGA Championship was played, and 20 years before the first Masters was played. And playing in the Open was so time-consuming and expensive (not to mention it being cancelled for five years during WW I) that he only played it 8 times before he turned 40 (winning four of those 8). So by your logic, we should give Hagen 22 majors, and say he's the GOAT.

But nobody does. More remarkably, almost nobody said he was the GOAT even before Jack broke his record. So where does that put your little factoid?

[k-troop]

I've always discounted the status of Snead, Nelson, and Hagen because none won the Slam, and all played during times of war which weakened the fields.  After doing a little wiki-research...

I think I judged Nelson appropriately.  His biggest accomplishment was the win streak, which happened during the last year of WWII.

Snead played and secured many of his wins during WWII and Korea (which had a lesser impact on the fields), but that was a small percentage of his wins.  I guess for me, the biggest drawback to Snead's career is that he could never win the US Open.

Hagen, on the other hand, had an amazing career.  He had all but one of his Major wins between 1919 and 1929, coinciding with the Bobby Jones era.  None of his Major wins happened during the major war periods.  He didn't win the Masters, but he was already 42 when the first Masters was held.  He never played in an Amateur tournament, as far as I know, but he surely would have wone many.  He basically invented professional golf.