Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Moving Up the Leaderboard

About Hardluckster

  • Rank
    Established Member

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Could these sporting events have taken place without any exponential spread of the virus occurring as a result? Maybe, maybe not. We cannot know that answer, but it is at least plausible to suggest that going forward would have not had any major effect in the nationwide spread of this virus. That said, even one unnecessary death resulting from going forward with these events would have been too many, in my opinion. Death is the final act of living and is something that we all have to face, but I see sports as inconsequential compared to infecting one person who could have been saved.
  2. My hope and prayer is that death rates are kept as low as possible and the spread is slow enough so that individuals who need medical attention can receive it. Personally, I don't care that there are folks upset over cancellations of sporting events, conferences, etc. I'm much more concerned that people who are infected and who develop severe infections can receive medical attention because adequate precautions were implemented. If the measures that are taken are deemed at a later date to have been an overreaction, then people have been overly inconvenienced and the economy has take
  3. If not for Tiger, I think that the USA would likely be down 8-2 (or more, possibly). He's played the best, most consistent golf of any US player over the past two days, imo. I'm glad that he's healthy and playing well again.
  4. The PGA obviously doesn't (yet) consider this to be an issue worth their input. Their product is selling and that's their bottom line - imo, until they feel that viewership is impacted by slow play they will feel no need to respond to it. Slugger's response is ridiculous, I think.
  5. I'm sure that's true. Just as I said above that if I was obligated to make a choice baaed on the data at hand, I'd go with Tiger. On this point I completely agree with the remarks made by iacas: we each get to choose what defines the GOAT for ourselves (apologies if my paraphrasing isn't 100% accurate). To that end, Jack can decide for himself what he thinks defines the GOAT I do not think that major championships can be used to define the GOAT - I suppose that much is obvious. 🤔 Now, I respect the views of people in this thread who view Tiger as the GOAT. The
  6. There are a great many people who believe that Jack is still the GOAT. That isn't in question. What I do question is whether anyone here who suggests that the GOAT cannot actually be identified has ever indicated that Jack was ever the GOAT (a point that you have suggested on numerous occasions). Are there such individuals out there? I would say that there almost surely are. Are any of them posting in this thread? I've seen no evidence of that.
  7. In a controlled experiment, all variables must be held to a constant except for the one variable that is being tested. In this situation, Jack or Tiger (or Hogan, Jones, Snead, Old Tom, etc) would be the one allowable variable. Any other variables makes it hypothetical, theoretical, speculative, etc. It's not that I don't care to compare at all. It is that you are comparing different data. As a scientist that just won't work for me. More than one independent variable leads to errors - courses, equipment, training, money, etc. Off to work now. I'll check back later. Have a
  8. Agree to disagree, I suppose. The variables are far too abundant for me to ever state that definitively. I suppose it goes to the individual's definition of GOAT more than anything else. To me, GOAT means the greatest to ever play the game - not the player who has the best records, stats, or achievements. I've just never believed that athletes across generations can be equally compared to each other in that manner. If you think that there haven't been people who belittle and ridicule in this thread, I would suggest that you haven't been paying attention. It's happened on all
  9. And so you speculate about their speculation. Can you cite evidence that these people you speak of proclaimed Jack as the GOAT, or is that just your opinion? At my club, there is a member who regularly shoots mid 60's. He is currently the best playing member that we have. Twenty years or so ago that honor belonged to another gentleman (who was also shooting mid 60's regularly). This older fellow is now playing from the senior tees, and while he still plays very well, he can't compete with the younger chap. Both were the best of their time but there's no way to know which, if either, was t
  10. It is obvious that you don't believe me. I'm OK with that. I've never proposed that Jack was the GOAT, and I would challenge you to prove differently but it would be futile and a waste your time (which I don't really wish to do) because no such view exists. As for being annoyed, again you propose to know my thoughts. I'm not annoyed. This is an internet message board - I would be silly to be annoyed by anyone's response to my opinion on this forum. I'm simply offering another opinion. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. I'm not proposing that my opinion is right and th
  11. I'm also a Sam Snead fan, an Arnold Palmer fan, and even a fan of Tiger Woods (in addition to many others). That doesn't mean that I espouse any of them to the the GOAT.
  12. I stated "used by folks trying to find the proverbial GOAT". I'm not trying to find the GOAT but if someone was I would think that majors won would be only one of the criteria that person should use. Maybe that wasn't plain in my statement. You must indeed be one really special person. You are able to read other people's minds. I am a Jack Nicklaus fan. I don't deny that. I have never believed that Jack was the GOAT, any more than I think that Michael Jordan is the GOAT in basketball or that Tom Brady is the GOAT in football. Is that really so difficult to believe?
  13. The number of majors won should be an important part of the equation used by folks trying to find the proverbial GOAT but I personally do not think that it can be (or should be) the sole determining factor.
  14. There are, in my opinion, innumerable variables that would prevent anyone from ever identifying the greatest golfer of all time. You claim that equipment is not important - I disagree. Nobody knows how good, or bad, Old Tom Morris would have been with a Pro V1 instead of his feathery golf balls. How much better might Hogan have been had he had metal woods? Course maintenance and conditions also factor into the discussion. These are but two of the myriad of differences that I could list. While none of these factors are important when discussing golfers of the same era, they definitely
  15. You have made an assumption for which you have no facts. I have never said that Jack was the GOAT. I don't believe in the entire premise of GOAT (in any sport) and I never have. I do not think that Jack is the GOAT - I never have. Your idea that the only difference that matters is strength of field is purely your opinion. I can respect it while at the same time disagreeing with it. Debating which golfer is the GOAT can be entertaining (as evidenced by this extensive thread). It can also be very polarizing (also evidenced by this thread). I'm just one person with an opinion
  • 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...