Jump to content

turtleback

Forum Leader
  • Content Count

    4,372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

turtleback last won the day on April 18 2019

turtleback had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

707 One of the All-Time Greats

1 Follower

About turtleback

  • Rank
    Old Man style golfer

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Colorado

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    none
  • Handedness
    Righty

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, it was certainly A dominant win. And consider that few players have had one dominant wins in majors, while off the top of my head I can think of 3 for Tiger - 97 Masters (12), 2000 US Open (15), and the 2000 British Open (8).
  2. Here is a list of links to a lot of the numbers that pretty clearly establish that Tiger has far exceeded Jack in every relevant metric with the sole exception of what, back then was 18>14, and is now 18>15. https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/2203-jack-vs-tiger-whos-the-greatest-golfer/?do=findComment&comment=1366814 The people who are in the worst position are the ones that dismiss strength of field arguments, because the only defense of Jack as #2 over Hogan at #3 beyond pure longevity is that Jack's fields were tougher than Ben's. BTW, it is nice to have someone enter the thread in good faith with an open mind. That hasn't been all that typical in this thread.
  3. Perhaps if you did read back a few pages you would realize how statistically dominant Tiger has been in virtually every other category. I think if you looked at all of the data you might find that the answer is much clearer than you were aware of. If I have some time I'll dig out one of the posts that cover a fair number of them, as I know seeking them out in this thread can be a daunting prospect. But I WILL leave you with one thought - until the latter stages of his career Jack virtually never played in an event in which included substantially all of the best players in the world. And Tiger played in 7-8 events every single year in which substantially all of the best players played. The 4 majors, 3 WGC and the Players. Unlike you (and it is to your credit), a lot of newbys come into this thread adamant that it is clearly Jack. I always offer them a challenge. Take the years of Jack's career and line them up from best to worst. I'll do the same with Tiger's carrer. And then we'll play matchplay, going down the line, comparing years. They never take me up on it, but I've done it myself and the match ends 10 & 8.
  4. How quickly people forget - golf is not a game of how, it is a game of how many. The scorecard doesn't lie. I don't care for Bryon, myself, but I think Rory's comments are both unfortunate and disappointing. The only potential bad is the collateral damage that may occur among other golfers trying to keep up on the distance. But that's not Bryson's problem.
  5. I'm not sure what your point is. YOU are the one who claimed there was no GOAT, just best of their era. Yet arguably the 2 best of all time seem to think there is such a thing as GOAT. Your 'evidence' doesn't support your point, it cuts against it. Now as to WHO the GOAT is? Unlike Jack, Tiger has been too classy to tailor the criteria for determining GOAT to his own accomplishments. But while Tiger has a classy opinion, we don't have to agree. But the fact is that by every measure but one, # of majors, Tiger has far surpassed Jack in virtually every other metric. Against MUCH tougher competition. No one would blame you for not reading 400 pages of this long-running discussion, but if you want to participate in a meaningful way you should maybe read the last 20 pages. Because so far every point you've raised has been pretty conclusively been dealt with.
  6. Yet the whole golf world had no problem calling Jack the GOAT for decades when, if you read back, Hogan had a very colorable claim. No one was saying you can't compare players across generations then. That only became an issue after Tiger had passed Jack in every measurable relevant category but one. Oh, and Jack disagrees with you, because one of his shifting criteria for determining the GOAT (and the very fact that Jack HAD criteria for GOAT shows he disagrees with your thesis) was that to be GOAT you needed to pass Snead's record of 82 tour wins. It wasn't until it became clear he wasn't going to make it that he shifted to most majors, one of the most dishonest things he ever did. But the point is that Jack believes you CAN compare players across eras, even if his criteria for doing so is self-serving and dishonest. I always hope that despite the hundreds at pages of this thread thrashing these issues out someone would come here with some new argument, but not so.
  7. Anyone who is making the point you are attempting to make but who ever considered Jack the GOAT really has a lot of 'splaining to do.
  8. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this form of competition doesn't even conform to the Rules of Golf, as there is no form under the Rules for a handicap competition where the handicap is determined in an arbitrary manner for arbitrary reasons. There is a huge amount of regulatory material outside the 4 corners of the rules about what handicaps are and how they are determined and this process isn't included. And in the one place where handicap competition is explicitly mentioned within the 4 corners of the rules it specifies that: That doesn't fit this case, since this "handicap" is not done "so that players of differing abilities can compete in a fair way." It is done for completely different reasons. So I think it would be nice if the tour Championship was a competition that conformed to the ROG. I know a change is unlikely but somehow that has no effect on my disdain for this abomination of a process. Nor on my railing about it every year when it comes up.
  9. You are entitled to like it. I'm entitled to despise it. As to your cut question, if you miss a cut in a playoff event you are out of the Cup competition. Is that so strange?
  10. I don't really care "what people like" because I doubt we even know if people like this monstrosity. I'm just a traditionalist with the strange idea that the guy that takes the fewest actual strokes in a stroke play tournament should win. Tradition usually reasserts itself in golf when they stray, and I hope this becomes another such instance.
  11. How about leave the tournaments like real tournaments and give the Cup and the money to the guy with the lowest aggregate score over the playoff events? That gives you 2 leaderboard after the first event. 2 leaderboards, twice as much interest and tension. And some interesting tactical dilemmas when the tourney leaderboard might indicate one decision while the Cup leaderboard might cut the other way.
  12. In his 1995 autobiography Jack said the age of the superstar is over. Then Tiger burst on the scene.
  13. It just shows how difficult it is to stay on top for an extended period, and why we shouldn't be so quick to label anyone as the next Tiger or Jack. We get that you don't like him. This other stuff you are using to justify yourself is just silly.
  14. I'm with you. And the one I feel bad for is the guy who shoots the lowest over the 4 rounds but doesn't get the PGAtour victory and all that comes with it. To me what was always the important thing was the tournaments. The "Cup" was always a second rate sideshow.
  15. Taking satisfaction from someone else's misfortune is not a good look, IMO.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...