Tournament Golf History - Offshoot of Tiger/Jack GOAT Discussion

[GrandStranded]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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

  Thanks for Quoting me out of context there.

[GrandStranded]

17 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

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. 

True, but fortunately for him he was born at a when the moment he announced he was going pro he signed a Nike deal which instantly made him a multi millionaire. He's lived a pretty good life, free from hardship. Had a great career, looks like far from over, and all in the greatest country in the world.

[JonMA1]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Manhattan said:

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. 

 

4 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

True, but fortunately for him he was born at a when the moment he announced he was going pro he signed a Nike deal which instantly made him a multi millionaire. He's lived a pretty good life, free from hardship. Had a great career, looks like far from over, and all in the greatest country in the world.

As true as both of these posts may be, with all due respect they both miss the point.

[Dr. Manhattan]

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

True, but fortunately for him he was born at a when the moment he announced he was going pro he signed a Nike deal which instantly made him a multi millionaire. He's lived a pretty good life, free from hardship. Had a great career, looks like far from over, and all in the greatest country in the world.

 

He has been extremely lucky. I was just responding to the hypothetical of putting Tiger in Jack’s time. Other poster mentioned that idea. 

[GrandStranded]

2 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

 

As true as both of these posts may be, with all due respect they both miss the point.

Point taken.

[turtleback]

1 hour 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.

Then we will hear about how field strength mysteriously deteriorated in 2018.  LOL

[Golfingdad]

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

Are you saying that the only way you would recognize him as GOAT is if he has the most majors?  If so, that of course writes Hogan, Snead, and Hagen and any others right out of the conversation.

I actually don't think that it's as black and white as you keep suggesting.  Just because Jack started the whole "majors are important" thing doesn't mean that anybody is trying to backdate it.  We can recognize that Jack started that line of thinking, apply it to him, and all others that come afterwards (if we so desire), and at the same time NOT apply it to those before him and yet still have conversations about who the greatest player was that still include people from those eras.

Along those lines, somebody could say they don't believe that Tiger will be the greatest until he gets to 19 majors, and yet still think that Byron Nelson or Sam Snead is better than Jack Nicklaus, and that would be perfectly valid.

[GrandStranded]

4 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Then we will hear about how field strength mysteriously deteriorated in 2018.  LOL

[turtleback]

57 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

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.

 

I agree with your early statement that you cannot just look at raw performance.  It would be absurd to conclude that the average college miler today is greater than the recently departed Roger Bannister.

My own standard for greatness is degree of dominance over a sufficient length of time.  The truly truly great ones are very rare because their accomplishments during that period of time are otherworldly.  Think Babe Ruth.  Wayne Gretsky.  Ben Hogan (9 majors out of 16 played!?!).  And Tiger Woods.  Lots of incredibly great athletes out there but very few can meet this standard.  And for me, Jack doesn't.  Other than in a cumulative longevity sense, everything Jack did had been done before.  He occupies the same place as Hank Aaron - an undeniably great great player whose greatest strength was being able to play at a highest level for a long time.  But not always the best.  And rarely dominant even for a season or two.

 

[GrandStranded]

3 minutes ago, turtleback said:

I agree with your early statement that you cannot just look at raw performance.  It would be absurd to conclude that the average college miler today is greater than the recently departed Roger Bannister.

My own standard for greatness is degree of dominance over a sufficient length of time.  The truly truly great ones are very rare because their accomplishments during that period of time are otherworldly.  Think Babe Ruth.  Wayne Gretsky.  Ben Hogan (9 majors out of 16 played!?!).  And Tiger Woods.  Lots of incredibly great athletes out there but very few can meet this standard.  And for me, Jack doesn't.  Other than in a cumulative longevity sense, everything Jack did had been done before.  He occupies the same place as Hank Aaron - an undeniably great great player whose greatest strength was being able to play at a highest level for a long time.  But not always the best.  And rarely dominant even for a season or two.

 

All due respect, But those last 3 sentences blew me away. I don't know how old you are, but I'd be shocked if you told me you are old enough to have watched Jack in the prime of his career after reading that.

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, GrandStranded said:

 

  Thanks for Quoting me out of context there. I think you're the one being obnoxious now.

 

Apology to Bill Chao, don't know how your name got in there.

If I can clear up at least part of this little contretemps, I think when you wrote:

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

@iacas, like me, initially read it as saying that neither Jack nor Arnie would say Tiger is the greatest - when it is well known that both of them have said that, as has virtually every other great player.  That WOULD have been obnoxious.  But what I think I now realize is, you didn't mean that at all, you meant that in their primes (should have been the tip-off) they would have looked Tiger right in the eye, concede nothing, and battle him with everything they had.  And if that Is a what you meant, I agree.  I just suspect we might disagree as to what the resulting outcome would be.

[turtleback]

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

All due respect, But those last 3 sentences blew me away. I don't know how old you are, but I'd be shocked if you told me you are old enough to have watched Jack in the prime of his career after reading that.

I'm 62 and I watched every bit of Jack's career.  Don't even try the superior knowledge routine.

I've offered this challenge before and no Jack supporter has taken it up yet and I don't think you will either but I hope I am wrong.

List Jack's seasons, from his most dominant on down.  I'll do the same with Tigers.  Then we'll put them side by side and have a little match play.  

But first, seriously, go to the other thread and read some of the stuff that has been posted.  Read that article that I linked and sort of reviewed about the 40 otherworldly aspects of Tiger's career.  As you do, reflect if there are any comparable or distinctive aspects of Jack's career.  Really ASK yourself if you really have anything besides 18>14.

But I still hope you'll play a little match play with me.

[GrandStranded]

3 minutes ago, turtleback said:

If I can clear up at least part of this little contretemps, I think when you wrote:

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

@iacas, like me, initially read it as saying that neither Jack nor Arnie would say Tiger is the greatest - when it is well known that both of them have said that, as has virtually every other great player.  That WOULD have been obnoxious.  But what I think I now realize is, you didn't mean that at all, you meant that in their primes (should have been the tip-off) they would have looked Tiger right in the eye, concede nothing, and battle him with everything they had.  And if that Is a what you meant, I agree.  I just suspect we might disagree as to what the resulting outcome would be.

That's exactly what I meant. Also, I have absolutely nothing against anyone thinking Tiger is better. I actually do also. I just get frustrated when one person states his opinion and those who agree with him as fact. This whole GOAT thing is fascinating to debate, but should be taken for all it can ever be. Which is a fun topic where everyone has an opinion, and only an opinion. Nobody is obnoxious or ignorant because they disagree. Nobody has empirical facts, charts, or references which settle the matter, despite what they think.

[Vinsk]

5 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

Nobody has empirical facts, charts, or references which settle the matter, despite what they think.

 Those pieces of data have actually been presented all through the previous thread.

[GrandStranded]

1 minute ago, turtleback said:

I'm 62 and I watched every bit of Jack's career.  Don't even try the superior knowledge routine.

I've offered this challenge before and no Jack supporter has taken it up yet and I don't think you will either but I hope I am wrong.

List Jack's seasons, from his most dominant on down.  I'll do the same with Tigers.  Then we'll put them side by side and have a little match play.  

But first, seriously, go to the other thread and read some of the stuff that has been posted.  Read that article that I linked and sort of reviewed about the 40 otherworldly aspects of Tiger's career.  As you do, reflect if there are any comparable or distinctive aspects of Jack's career.  Really ASK yourself if you really have anything besides 18>14.

But I still hope you'll play a little match play with me.

Don't take it wrong, The last thing I was doing was claiming superior knowledge or challenging you. We are a year apart in age. I'm 63. I'm amazed though how you remember Jack's career so differently then I do. I remember every year the media and/or Jack would discuss his chances for a Grand Slam. He didn't seem to play a heavy schedule, but seemed only concerned about being ready for the Majors. It almost seemed like golf took a back seat to him once his children were born. Do you remember it much different? I'm really curious.

[turtleback]

Just now, GrandStranded said:

That's exactly what I meant. Also, I have absolutely nothing against anyone thinking Tiger is better. I actually do also. I just get frustrated when one person states his opinion and those who agree with him as fact. This whole GOAT thing is fascinating to debate, but should be taken for all it can ever be. Which is a fun topic where everyone has an opinion, and only an opinion. Nobody is obnoxious or ignorant because they disagree. Nobody has empirical facts, charts, or references which settle the matter, despite what they think.

There is a big difference in stating an opinion as fact and challenging the factualness of things put forth to support an opinion.  Not saying you did or are doing that, but it happens and sometimes one is mistaken for the other.

I never get too involved in the field of strength debates.  I think the case is clear, but I prefer to devote my attentions to other aspects.  Maybe because my focus is dominance it is implicit that it is over one's peers.  But in a Jack vs. Tiger thread if someone tries to claim, as recently happened, that somehow the field of the '97 Masters was pathetic, and will not acknowledge that it was orders of magnitude tougher than Jack's early British Open fields, then that is a factual matter.

[GrandStranded]

3 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

 Those pieces of data have actually been presented all through the previous thread.

I see your, and raise

4 minutes ago, turtleback said:

There is a big difference in stating an opinion as fact and challenging the factualness of things put forth to support an opinion.  Not saying you did or are doing that, but it happens and sometimes one is mistaken for the other.

I never get too involved in the field of strength debates.  I think the case is clear, but I prefer to devote my attentions to other aspects.  Maybe because my focus is dominance it is implicit that it is over one's peers.  But in a Jack vs. Tiger thread if someone tries to claim, as recently happened, that somehow the field of the '97 Masters was pathetic, and will not acknowledge that it was orders of magnitude tougher than Jack's early British Open fields, then that is a factual matter.

I remember that post, and actually agreed with the point of the Open fields of the day not being the strongest, and the why. Again, I don't disagree with many of the pro Tiger points, but I think most of them are opinion based more then factual. I think that's where we mainly disagree.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

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.

You would have a hard time arguing that he'd have done better, though, for sure.

Pretty logical to say he'd far as well or, more likely, poorer.

55 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Wayne Gretsky.

I know a lot of people who could pretty easily make a case for Lemieux over Gretzky. Hockey is a team sport, so the achievements there are even muddier. A lot of people will say that Gretzky played on better teams, but Lemieux was the better natural hockey player.

48 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

All due respect, But those last 3 sentences blew me away. I don't know how old you are, but I'd be shocked if you told me you are old enough to have watched Jack in the prime of his career after reading that.

See, that's how stuck in your own opinion you are. Brandel Chamblee and much more so Johnny Miller played against those guys… and still give the edge to Tiger.

33 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

That's exactly what I meant. Also, I have absolutely nothing against anyone thinking Tiger is better. I actually do also. I just get frustrated when one person states his opinion and those who agree with him as fact. This whole GOAT thing is fascinating to debate, but should be taken for all it can ever be. Which is a fun topic where everyone has an opinion, and only an opinion. Nobody is obnoxious or ignorant because they disagree. Nobody has empirical facts, charts, or references which settle the matter, despite what they think.

The fields are stronger and deeper now. That's pretty much a fact. You can try to take it down as an opinion all you want - it's not. Golf is not an anomaly. There are more players now, more countries, more money, better training, and so on and so on.

Golf's fields are both stronger and deeper now. Look at the fields in the British Open then compared to now. Look at the fields in the U.S. Open. In the first Q School in like 1965, something like 59 players tried out. Within the last few years, we've broken 10,000+ people trying to qualify for the U.S. Open.

The fields are stronger and deeper now. That's not just my opinion.

And as I've said a few times… even Jack Nicklaus himself would tell you this: the fields are stronger and deeper now. By far.

Here's a graph that demonstrates what I'm talking about (and also demonstrates how the fields can't keep getting tougher and tougher to infinity… there's a limiting factor because only 125 people are ever really "on" the PGA Tour, and the effective % of a population reaches a limit of 0%:

From this post:

A mockup image that I've run by more people than I can count with positive reviews:

I have the feeling you haven't read that other topic at all.

20 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

I remember that post, and actually agreed with the point of the Open fields of the day not being the strongest, and the why. Again, I don't disagree with many of the pro Tiger points, but I think most of them are opinion based more then factual. I think that's where we mainly disagree.

There's a heavy factual basis to it. The simplest is represented by the graphic above: more players = stronger fields.

Real life, every year, on the PGA Tour ain't Hoosiers. (And even then their depth was five - their sixth player was substantially worse.)