Tournament Golf History - Offshoot of Tiger/Jack GOAT Discussion

[GrandStranded]

Just now, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

Is Johnny Miller guilty of this too? In the mid-1990's, he said if Tiger wins 50 Tour events and 12 majors it might be the best career ever. Nicklaus was also talking a lot about how crazy the depth on Tour was around that time. Tiger made it look so easy to dominate the game that I believe people have now taken it for granted and assume he was beating a bunch of bums.

NEWS FLASH . Most of them were. They couldn't have feared him more if they got into a ring with Mike Tyson. Just look at the never were's who are playing the Senior Tour now. Those are the stiffs Tiger was beating up on. It's not his fault, but VERY FEW could/would stand up to him. 

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

NEWS FLASH . Most of them were. They couldn't have feared him more if they got into a ring with Mike Tyson. Just look at the never were's who are playing the Senior Tour now. Those are the stiffs Tiger was beating up on. It's not his fault, but VERY FEW could/would stand up to him. 

They were better than the competition Jack faced. Significantly better.

You’re taking Tiger’s dominance exactly the opposite way it should be taken.

Truth is he beat better fields by margins that exceeded Jack’s victories over weaker fields.

And not only is 15 > 18, 14 is too given the field strength and depth, IMO and in the opinions of many, many others.

[GrandStranded]

Just now, iacas said:

They were better than the competition Jack faced. Significantly better.

You’re taking Tiger’s dominance exactly the opposite way it should be taken.

Truth is he beat better fields by margins that exceeded Jack’s victories over weaker fields.

Your opinion. Only that. Not the one of everyone else.

[Dr. Manhattan]

8 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

NEWS FLASH . Most of them were. They couldn't have feared him more if they got into a ring with Mike Tyson. Just look at the never were's who are playing the Senior Tour now. Those are the stiffs Tiger was beating up on. It's not his fault, but VERY FEW could/would stand up to him. 

 

What happens if the broke down, ancient Tiger starts dominating all the young hot shots that everybody drools about? He was doing it in 2013 until his back injury that same year. I don't know if he can stay healthy. It's a huge question mark now and will be a huge question the rest of his career. But IF he stays healthy, he will be extremely difficult for those young guns to beat over the next 5-10 years.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

Your opinion. Only that. Not the one of everyone else.

No, it’s not. Simple math.

And it’s Jack’s opinion too. Johnny Miller’s as well. @Phil McGleno‘s.

Brandel Chamblee’s. Arnie’s.

[GrandStranded]

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

Your opinion. Only that. Not the one of everyone else.

Fred couples, Davis Love Vijay, Fred Funk. superior to Gary player, Tom Watson, Arnold Palmer., Billy Casper. Give me a frikking break.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Fred couples, Davis Love Vijay, Fred Funk. superior to Gary player, Tom Watson, Arnold Palmer., Billy Casper. Give me a frikking break.

You’re being obnoxious now.

I’ve responded to this. Linked to more responses to this. Responded to YOU even. Many many times. We have a whole topic about it.

Yes, the players Tiger faced were better. I’m not getting into specific comparisons. Tiger routinely played against - and dominated more than Jack did - stronger and deeper fields.

Fact.

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, it’s not. Simple math.

And it’s Jack’s opinion too. Johnny Miller’s as well. @Phil McGleno‘s.

Brandel Chamblee’s. Arnie’s.

So if we're blindly going by everything Miller and Chamblee, (Talk about 2 guys who'll say anything to get noticed.) And I doubt very much Jack OR Arnie would concede anything to Tiger in their primes. Have no clue who the Phil guy is, but I know he claims to have played against Jack on Tour. If so, good on him.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

So if we're blindly going by everything Miller and Chamblee,

I said no such thing.

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

And I doubt very much Jack OR Arnie would concede anything to Tiger in their primes.

Then you’re pretty ignorant to this topic.

2 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Have no clue who the Phil guy is, but I know he claims to have played against Jack on Tour. If so, good on him.

Yup.

I’m done. You’re arguing from a position of ignorance. Your opinion and nothing else.

[jbishop15]

52 minutes ago, Piz said:

And to complicate matters, he had to begin his rehab with Glen Ford's golf swing.

hahahahahhahahahahahahaha 

[GrandStranded]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

What happens if the broke down, ancient Tiger starts dominating all the young hot shots that everybody drools about? He was doing it in 2013 until his back injury that same year. I don't know if he can stay healthy. It's a huge question mark now and will be a huge question the rest of his career. But IF he stays healthy, he will be extremely difficult for those young guns to beat over the next 5-10 years.

True. But it's nothing but a what if right now isn't it? If they beat him down, does that diminish his greatness? I don't think so..

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

You’re being obnoxious now.

I’ve responded to this. Linked to more responses to this. Responded to YOU even. Many many times. We have a whole topic about it.

Yes, the players Tiger faced were better. I’m not getting into specific comparisons. Tiger routinely played against - and dominated more than Jack did - stronger and deeper fields.

Fact.

 

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

I said no such thing.

Then you’re pretty ignorant to this topic.

Yup.

I’m done. You’re arguing from a position of ignorance. Your opinion and nothing else.

Yeah, I'm ignorant. Or maybe I should just end my posts with the word "Fact". 

[Dr. Manhattan]

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

True. But it's nothing but a what if right now isn't it? If they beat him down, does that diminish his greatness? I don't think so..

 

Definitely a huge what if because he will have the health shadow hanging over every shot the rest of his career.

Only thing that gets in Tiger's way is Tiger himself or injury. He looked like an unbelievable head case a few years ago. Legitimate chip yips averaging 20 feet from the hole on chip shots. Now he's averaging under 5 feet on chip shots (Top 5 in the last tournament). He's making the short game look very easy again, similar to Mickelson or prime Tiger.

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

 

Definitely a huge what if because he will have the health shadow hanging over every shot the rest of his career.

Only thing that gets in Tiger's way is Tiger himself or injury. He looked like an unbelievable head case a few years ago. Legitimate chip yips averaging 20 feet from the hole on chip shots. Now he's averaging under 5 feet on chip shots (Top 5 in the last tournament). He's making the short game look very easy again, similar to Mickelson or prime Tiger.

Yeah, Tiger does look like he'll be tough to beat this week though.

[skydog]

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

I'll start with this question - was it reasonable for guys like Hagen and Hogan to be written out of the GOAT discussion by definition?  Are there other guys that could also be included?  

 

I don't know. With such a large leap in most all aspects of everyday life and sports over the last ~70-100 years since the days of Hagen and Hogan, I think most any of us lack the ability to be able to really know. Tiger and Jack were at least only a generation apart and both played (mostly) in the modern TV era so we can form relatively informed opinions about their game. I have great admiration for Hogan's game from the little I know of it, but I lack the lens to be able to attempt to compare him to Jack or Tiger. 

Makes you wonder how the likes of Tiger and Jack will be viewed/remembered 100 years from now. 

[billchao]

At this point, all Jack has is 18 > 14. The rest is pretty much all Tiger. Tiger has won more tournaments in a shorter span, more player of the years, more years as money leader, etc. I know it gets confusing, but he's won a bunch of European Tour events, too, separate from those counted as PGA Tour wins as well. He's also still playing, so the book isn't closed just yet.

But hey, 18 > 14, right? That's the stick we should go by. Therefore, Angel Cabrera > Dustin Johnson, Fred Couples, Jim Furyk. And while we're at it, Padraig Harrington > all of them, Greg Norman, Johnny Miller. See how ridiculous it is to determine somebody's entire body of work by one single criteria?

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Yeah, I'm ignorant.

Do you disagree? Off the top of my head you didn’t know what Jack has said about modern players.

And it’s obnoxious because you’re not only putting words in the mouths of others but seemingly not reading anything people say in response to you.

[JonMA1]

I've been listening to GOAT disagreements in every major sport for most of my life.

If you accept that the level of skill in a sport continues to get better with each generation - and I believe it generally does - and that's used as an argument for GOAT, it doesn't make for a very interesting discussion. I also don't think it's a fair comparison because there's no way to know how a top athlete from a previous generation would have fared against better overall competition.

Throw in the idea that one reason each generation may be better is, in some small part, because of the previous one.

For me, the argument of GOAT assumes all things besides the athletes' talent would be equal. Meaning, I'd consider how Tiger might have fared if he grew up at exactly the same time Nicklaus did, and vice versa. That's just an opinion and one way crazy way of looking at things, but I think there's validity to it.

Most of the defenders Jim Brown played against were no where near the level of today's. I think most would agree on that. If you transported him from 1957 to 2017 for one game, he would have no idea how to play against defenders that were just as fast and just as big - with more talent than he's ever seen. But it doesn't automatically mean Brown, if born in 1991 and grown up competing against more talented high school and college players, would not have been as successful in the NFL in 2017.

As far as Jack and Tiger, my opinion is that Tiger played at a slightly higher level and obviously, he's not yet done. But that's just an uneducated opinion. (Honestly, I have almost no right to be part of this discussion because of how little I followed golf for most of my life.) I say that because of his accomplishments not because of him playing against better competition. But seriously, Jack was incredibly talented, I don't care how bad the bottom two thirds of his competition was.

 

[Dr. Manhattan]

If Tiger was born the same year as Jack, he would not even be allowed to play The Masters until age 35 due to racism.