Will it be a big deal if/when Tiger passes Snead for all time wins?

[ghalfaire]

I believe it will be a big deal.  Not sure Tiger believe this however as he set his goal at breaking Jack's record of 18 professional majors. and likely will not see this mark as making him exceptional.  At least not exceptional enough to suit him.

[lumpuckeroo]

I believe it will be a big deal.  Not sure Tiger believe this however as he set his goal at breaking Jack's record of 18 professional majors. and likely will not see this mark as making him exceptional.  At least not exceptional enough to suit him.

I would tend to agree, but the fact that Snead's record has stood for so long and Snead is consider one of the all time greats, I hope he see's it as a big deal.

I think it's a big deal, IMHO, if Tiger breaks Snead's record, I could see that record hold up for a significant amount of time.  Over Tiger's 18 seasons as a pro he's averaging over 4 wins a season, that's a career year for almost every other pro, Rory's only had one 4 win or better season and Phil has had three 4 win seasons.

[Zeph]

Maybe Tiger will see it as a bigger deal if he doesn't beat Jack. Then he'd at least have one of the records.

[BruceMGF]

i dont see this happening.  i think in 60 years, winning more than 40 tournaments is going to be huge, because the talent level will be that much deeper.  it will be so hard to separate from the pack to be able to win that many more tournaments than any other player.

Hmmm.  Frank Beard wrote a book in 1969 in which he said that winning two tournaments in a season would become vanishingly rare very soon, because the talent level was so deep.

Yet here we are ...

[NJpatbee]

Like it or not, all golf tournaments are not created equally. All majors bring out all of the top players and the conditions are tough. I do not attribute to Jack the idea that a major win is more of an accomplishment than a standard tour win, but I honestly believe that it is a bigger accomplishment due to the caliber of the field, the conditions, and the pressure of knowing that winning a major can change a golfer's career, even if he never wins another. For Jack to rise up 18 times and Tiger 14 so far is an incredible statement about their ability to perform under the most difficult conditions. Let's face it, you and I know how you fill in the blank: Sergio is the best golfer to ______________. Just like Dan Marino pales in comparison to Brady or Bradshaw because he never "won a ring". I happen to think that Marino was better than Brady or Bradshaw but you have to win the big ones to be considered the greatest.

[turtleback]

Like it or not, all golf tournaments are not created equally. All majors bring out all of the top players and the conditions are tough. I do not attribute to Jack the idea that a major win is more of an accomplishment than a standard tour win, but I honestly believe that it is a bigger accomplishment due to the caliber of the field, the conditions, and the pressure of knowing that winning a major can change a golfer's career, even if he never wins another. For Jack to rise up 18 times and Tiger 14 so far is an incredible statement about their ability to perform under the most difficult conditions.

Let's face it, you and I know how you fill in the blank: Sergio is the best golfer to ______________.

Just like Dan Marino pales in comparison to Brady or Bradshaw because he never "won a ring". I happen to think that Marino was better than Brady or Bradshaw but you have to win the big ones to be considered the greatest.

Except for quite a few of Jack's majors this was simply not true.  In particular, the British Open rarely had most of the worlds best players because even in the first half of Jack;s career top players did not routinely go ply it.  Billy Casper, who was arguably the best player of the mid 60s (yes, right in the middle of Jack's prime.) with 50 PGA Tour wins, played the British Open 3 times.  GO find some field listings from a British open in the 1960s and you will not recognize many names and you will see a lot of recognizable names missing.

That is what is so pernicious about Jack's claim that the only fair way to compare golfers of different eras is their record in majors.  He had far more opportunities to play majors than the players that came before.  If Tiger came out and said that the only fair way to compare golfers of different eras is the number of premium field events, which he defines as majors, WGCs and Players?  Heads would explode and the first thing we would hear is ridicule since guys like Jack and Arnie didn't get to play WGCs.

Regarding Marino, it wasn't his team, he really did suck when it counted.  Look at the list of games in which his team was eliminated.  In every instance but one, a game against San Diego, in the game that got the Dolphins eliminated from the playoffs each year Marino had a crappy game - sometimes spectacularly so.  The only thing that keeps him from being th most overrted QB of all time is Joe Namath.  Here are his passer ratings in the elimination games:

1999: 34.6 while being eliminated by Jacksonville

1998: 65.5 while being eliminated by Denver

1997: 29.3 while being eliminated by NE

1995: 63.4 while being eliminated by  Buffalo

1994: 109.8 while being eliminated by San Diego - the one time it was his team, not him

1992: 56.5 while being eliminated by Buffalo

1990: 72.1 while being eliminated by Buffalo

1985: 54.9 while being eliminated by NE

1984: 66.9 while losing the SuperBowl to SF

1983: 77.6 while losing to Seattle

[k-troop]

Seriously, guys--this thread isn't about whether Jack's majors are better than Tiger's majors. We already have two threads dedicated to beating that horse.

[9iron]

The fact some guys didn't show up is on them. Jack can only b eat the players that qualified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Except for quite a few of Jack's majors this was simply not true.  In particular, the British Open rarely had most of the worlds best players because even in the first half of Jack;s career top players did not routinely go ply it.  Billy Casper, who was arguably the best player of the mid 60s (yes, right in the middle of Jack's prime.) with 50 PGA Tour wins, played the British Open 3 times.  GO find some field listings from a British open in the 1960s and you will not recognize many names and you will see a lot of recognizable names missing.

That is what is so pernicious about Jack's claim that the only fair way to compare golfers of different eras is their record in majors.  He had far more opportunities to play majors than the players that came before.  If Tiger came out and said that the only fair way to compare golfers of different eras is the number of premium field events, which he defines as majors, WGCs and Players?  Heads would explode and the first thing we would hear is ridicule since guys like Jack and Arnie didn't get to play WGCs.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by 9iron

18 is still more than 14, Turtleback. Jack > Tiger until Tiger surpasses 18.

The fact some guys didn't show up is on them. Jack can only b eat the players that qualified.

LOL, is this supposed to be some kind of rebuttal or something?

Nice to see that sound-bite thinking is still alive and well.

[colin007]

18 is still more than 14, Turtleback. Jack > Tiger until Tiger surpasses 18. The fact some guys didn't show up is on them. Jack can only b eat the players that qualified.

I would say that the guys Tiger beat in those 14 majors were better than the guys Jack beat in his 18.

[9iron]

I would say that the guys Tiger beat in those 14 majors were better than the guys Jack beat in his 18.

Don't care. Jack still won 18 majors to Tiger's 14. Jack has far more 2nd's, 3rd's, top 5's and tip 10's too. His record in majors is substantially better than Tiger's is. I also doubt he ever chunked 10 shots in a tournament as Tiger recently has done.

[billchao]

Guys, this is not the Jack vs Tiger thread.... :offtopic:

[Aflighter]

So what happens if Rory wins 10-12 majors?Does his wins equal Tigers 14 since he would be playing better golfers than Tiger faced since we have better golfers as the years go on?

[k-troop]

So what happens if Rory wins 10-12 majors?Does his wins equal Tigers 14 since he would be playing better golfers than Tiger faced since we have better golfers as the years go on?

Yes. Rory is competing against the generation Tiger created, including an explosion in Asian players.

[Aflighter]

Yes. Rory is competing against the generation Tiger created, including an explosion in Asian players.

Well then i guess he will surpass Tiger because i see him doing it.

[Jakester23]

So what happens if Rory wins 10-12 majors?Does his wins equal Tigers 14 since he would be playing better golfers than Tiger faced since we have better golfers as the years go on?

[quote name="Aflighter" url="/t/79083/will-it-be-a-big-deal-if-when-tiger-passes-snead-for-all-time-wins/30#post_1098012"]Well then i guess he will surpass Tiger because i see him doing it. [/quote] I see Tiger ending up with more than 14 so it's a better question once both of their careers end.

[turtleback]

So what happens if Rory wins 10-12 majors?Does his wins equal Tigers 14 since he would be playing better golfers than Tiger faced since we have better golfers as the years go on?

This has come up in some of the other threads and I would say that most of those who take the position that Tiger is the GOAT now were in the camp that about a dozen would do it for Rory.  IF Rory also has a level of overall dominance comparable to Tigers.  He has to up his game significantly in the multi-wins in a season category.  He has to win POY and the Vardon most years.  AND be u there in the top 3-5 in number of tour wins.

Those who reduce it to one number miss the point, IMO.

[Aflighter]

This has come up in some of the other threads and I would say that most of those who take the position that Tiger is the GOAT now were in the camp that about a dozen would do it for Rory.  IF Rory also has a level of overall dominance comparable to Tigers.  He has to up his game significantly in the multi-wins in a season category.  He has to win POY and the Vardon most years.  AND be u there in the top 3-5 in number of tour wins.

Those who reduce it to one number miss the point, IMO.

At his age id imagine Rory will win enough other tournys along with 8-10 more majors to be called the best.In 20 years if he has won that many then people will surpass him over Tiger just like most try to put Tiger over Jack because people forget past.Personally i dont care as much about numbers as circumstance.I honestly think Ben Hogan is the greatest based on what he would have done if he hadnt gone to war,almost being killed and basically winning even after that wreck on his legs.If Hogan would have been able to play in as many majors as Jack and Tiger then id bet anything it would be Hogan with the most majors.