What would Tiger Woods need to do to become #1 Greatest Golfer?

[Golfingdad]

It's a Tiger - Jack specific argument that the fanboys grasp with a dead man's grip.

Tristan already addressed the issue of you presenting your opinion as fact so I won't get into that, but what's the deal with the whole "I better call the people who disagree with me derogatory names because that's definitely going to make my argument sound better" nonsense?  Seriously?

You can't recognize that there are people who believe Tiger has had a more impressive career than Jack without resorting to calling those people "fanboys?"  That is pathetic.

Also ...

Strength of field? BS.

Wow, that is ..... compelling.  Excellent point.  Well thought out.  Can't believe I didn't think of it.

[Hatchman]

Longevity is over-rated.

Tell that to Social Security. Your not serious are you?

[Gunther]

Tristan already addressed the issue of you presenting your opinion as fact so I won't get into that, but what's the deal with the whole "I better call the people who disagree with me derogatory names because that's definitely going to make my argument sound better" nonsense?  Seriously? You can't recognize that there are people who believe Tiger has had a more impressive career than Jack without resorting to calling those people "fanboys?"  That is pathetic. Also ...  Wow, that is ..... compelling.  Excellent point.  Well thought out.  Can't believe I didn't think of it.

Fanboy is derogatory?

[Golfingdad]

Fanboy is derogatory?

Dismissive is a better word.

It's a wave of the hand and a scoff at the idea that somebody would disagree with you.  It's saying that the only reason that they disagree with you is because they must love Tiger Woods.  There is no possible other reason for them to think Tiger is better than Jack, so they MUST just adore him.

Whichever "D" word you go with, it's insulting (or at least an attempt to be) to people who are making good arguments on the other side.

[Gunther]

Dismissive is a better word. It's a wave of the hand and a scoff at the idea that somebody would disagree with you.  It's saying that the only reason that they disagree with you is because they must love Tiger Woods.  There is no possible other reason for them to think Tiger is better than Jack, so they MUST just adore him. Whichever "D" word you go with, it's insulting (or at least an attempt to be) to people who are making good arguments on the other side.

What is it when they call the folks who don't believe Tiger is GOAT "hater"? Seems pretty identical to what you described here, eh? Bottom line, there ARE fanboys who think Tiger is the GOAT just because he's Tiger and there ARE haters who think he isn't GOAT just because he's Tiger. I've posted often of my feelings on the topic, citing longevity, majors, legacy, etc. I didn't feel a need in my post yesterday to reiterate all of my thoughts on the matter. I ceded the point to Tristan, he was correct to call me on what he did. You're just piling on.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Dismissive is a better word.

It's a wave of the hand and a scoff at the idea that somebody would disagree with you.  It's saying that the only reason that they disagree with you is because they must love Tiger Woods.  There is no possible other reason for them to think Tiger is better than Jack, so they MUST just adore him.

Whichever "D" word you go with, it's insulting (or at least an attempt to be) to people who are making good arguments on the other side.

What is it when they call the folks who don't believe Tiger is GOAT "hater"? Seems pretty identical to what you described here, eh? Bottom line, there ARE fanboys who think Tiger is the GOAT just because he's Tiger and there ARE haters who think he isn't GOAT just because he's Tiger.

I've posted often of my feelings on the topic, citing longevity, majors, legacy, etc. I didn't feel a need in my post yesterday to reiterate all of my thoughts on the matter. I ceded the point to Tristan, he was correct to call me on what he did. You're just piling on.

Try not to fall into either of these groups. Be objective and support your points with data and without use of emotionally toned words or trying to classify someone with has an opposing point to view.  That is proper debate and discussion.

[Gunther]

Try not to fall into either of these groups. Be objective and support your points with data and without use of emotionally toned words or trying to classify someone with has an opposing point to view.  That is proper debate and discussion.

Good advice for all.

[saevel25]

Tell that to Social Security. Your not serious are you?

Social Security has nothing to do with golf.

Past a certain length of a career longevity doesn't matter. I am pretty sure nearly 20 years for Tiger is long enough. I am sure a lot of golfers would have loved to just make the PGA Tour once, alone have 20 years on the Tour. I am sure David Duval might have liked to not get hit by injuries and had another 10 years of the golf he was producing in the late 1990's.

If someone had an equal to or better career in a 10 year span versus someone's 15 year span, those 5 years don't mean much to me.

Bottom line, there ARE fanboys who think Tiger is the GOAT just because he's Tiger and there ARE haters who think he isn't GOAT just because he's Tiger.

Now you are just generalizing. I think Tiger is the GOAT and I actively rooted against Tiger in his prime. I wanted other guys to beat him. I like underdog stories. I loved watching David Duval dethrone Tiger in 1999 for a short while. I wanted Phil to take a few Majors away from Tiger.

I can objectively sit back and say he's the GOAT because of what he's done against the field he's played against.

[Gunther]

Now you are just generalizing. I think Tiger is the GOAT and I actively rooted against Tiger in his prime. I wanted other guys to beat him. I like underdog stories. I loved watching David Duval dethrone Tiger in 1999 for a short while. I wanted Phil to take a few Majors away from Tiger.  I can objectively sit back and say he's the GOAT because of what he's done against the field he's played against.

I believe that, actually; I don't consider you a "fanboy", I was just jackin with you yesterday. ;-)

[Hatchman]

@savaeI25 - "Past a certain length of a career longevity doesn't matter." Argument confusing to me but appriciate your opinion.

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther


What is it when they call the folks who don't believe Tiger is GOAT "hater"? Seems pretty identical to what you described here, eh? Bottom line, there ARE fanboys who think Tiger is the GOAT just because he's Tiger and there ARE haters who think he isn't GOAT just because he's Tiger.

I've posted often of my feelings on the topic, citing longevity, majors, legacy, etc. I didn't feel a need in my post yesterday to reiterate all of my thoughts on the matter. I ceded the point to Tristan, he was correct to call me on what he did. You're just piling on.

It's only "piling on" if you want it to be but I posted it as constructive criticism.  You take it however you please.

Here's what you said again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther


Well, that's the point of the thread: What does Tiger need to do to become GOAT? He ain't there yet, regardless what some think. Strength of field? BS. So, if Jordan or Rory get to 9 majors then they'll be the best because strength of field is so much better? No, of course not. Then if someone in 2135 gets to 5, they'll be GOAT? Course not. It's a Tiger - Jack specific argument that the fanboys grasp with a dead man's grip.

The fact is, history will tell the tale (as I've said before). If Tiger does not go on a tear on his 40s, he will never be considered GOAT in 30 years, and he shouldn't. He's got a lot left to do.

And if it was me, here's what I would have said:

Quote:

Well, that's the point of the thread: What does Tiger need to do to become GOAT? A lot of you already feel he's there, but I don't. Sure, the strength of field might have been better in Tigers day than in Jacks, but what about right now ? If Jordan or Rory get to say, 9 or 10 majors then they'll be the best because strength of field is so much better? I highly doubt that. Let's go to even further extremes then ... what if someone in 2135 gets to 5, they'll be GOAT? Where does it stop?

IMO , history will tell the tale. If Tiger does not go on a tear on his 40s, he will never be considered the undisputed GOAT. IMO, he's got a lot left to do.

If you want to have intelligent discussion with intelligent people, there are better ways to go about making your arguments than stating "facts" and lumping your adversaries into nice and neat little categories like "fanboys."

[skydog]

Past a certain length of a career longevity doesn't matter. I am pretty sure nearly 20 years for Tiger is long enough.

Calling Tiger's career 20 years is a mischaracterization. Yes, he has been active for nearly 20 years on tour but most of his dominance was confined to a handful of years. He won 7 of his majors between Aug 1999- Jun 2002 and 6 between Apr 2005- Jun 2008. That's an aggregate 6 years where he racked up all but one of his majors. It was an amazing run (2 runs) that I don't think we'll ever see again in our lifetime but I don't think it can be construed as a lengthy major career by any golf standards.

[Gunther]

It's only "piling on" if you want it to be but I posted it as constructive criticism.  You take it however you please. If you want to have intelligent discussion with intelligent people, there are better ways to go about making your arguments than stating "facts" and lumping your adversaries into nice and neat little categories like "fanboys."

Or "haters." Again, point conceded to Tristan and Boogie now. I'd like to move on.

[Golfingdad]

Or "haters." Again, point conceded to Tristan and Boogie now. I'd like to move on.

By all means.  Move on and keep doing what you're doing.

[tristanhilton85]

Calling Tiger's career 20 years is a mischaracterization. Yes, he has been active for nearly 20 years on tour but most of his dominance was confined to a handful of years. He won 7 of his majors between Aug 1999- Jun 2002 and 6 between Apr 2005- Jun 2008. That's an aggregate 6 years where he racked up all but one of his majors. It was an amazing run (2 runs) that I don't think we'll ever see again in our lifetime but I don't think it can be construed as a lengthy major career by any golf standards.

So his five wins and POY in 2013 count for nothing?

[skydog]

So his five wins and POY in 2013 count for nothing?

I said major* career as Tiger, Jack, and most folks that I know of have agreed to use majors as the best means of trying to compare careers across generations.

[saevel25]

I said major* career as Tiger, Jack, and most folks that I know of have agreed to use majors as the best means of trying to compare careers across generations.

I don't know. If you have a guy with 10 majors and 15 overall wins. I think a guy with 80 overall wins and zero majors had a better career.

Calling Tiger's career 20 years is a mischaracterization. Yes, he has been active  for nearly 20 years on tour but most of his dominance was confined to a handful of years. He won 7 of his majors between Aug 1999- Jun 2002 and 6 between Apr 2005- Jun 2008. That's an aggregate 6 years where he racked up all but one of his majors. It was an amazing run (2 runs) that I don't think we'll ever see again in our lifetime but I don't think it can be construed as a lengthy major career by any golf standards.

You mean Jack who had 7 Majors in 5 years then 7 majors in another 5 years stretch.  Sounds a lot like Tiger to me :p

[Abu3baid]

I said major* career as Tiger, Jack, and most folks that I know of have agreed to use majors as the best means of trying to compare careers across generations.

Majors are suppose to have the strongest fields in the toughest conditions correct? Basically the best of the best right? So, your argument would hold merit even if Tiger was great in 2013 he wasn't able to win any of the 4 majors and he hasn't in a long time.. Injury doesn't really enter the conversation either because that's part of life and sport.. So, your other point of the concentration of majors being in a small time frame is legitimate. It will have bearing on how is viewed even if what he accomplished in that short time frame is incredible.