Jump to content

Hardluckster

Established Member
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hardluckster

  1. 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.
  2. 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. There is a wealth of statistics and data to support that belief. I agree that from the statistical spectrum, Tiger's career achievements are more impressive than Jack's (or anyone, for that matter). If statistics and numbers define the GOAT for you, I understand your reasoning that Tiger is the guy. 👏🏻 I am also OK with opposing views in favor of other golfers. Everyone can choose their own criteria for this title. 👍🏻 in my mind, GOAT quite simply implies the person who would have dominated all other golfers throughout all eras (not in single head-to-head matches but over a career-like time span). That's why my belief is that GOTT is the best that we can do. **Addendum: I'm fine with people who disagree with my view - so long as it is done respectfully. I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind here. I'm just attempting to discuss another way of looking at the topic. 😇
  3. 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.
  4. 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 great day, all. Lastly, before I go: it isn't that I think that you are wrong (you may very well be correct) - or maybe the Jack people are correct. It is that I don't think this can be proven by my definition of GOAT. Tiger's records and stats are more impressive, regardless of the major championship totals. I'll not dispute that. Again, have a great day - I've got to get to work. 😂
  5. 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 sides of the discussion, also, imo.
  6. 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 the best of the two. I have already stated in this thread that if forced to choose, I think that Tiger probably gets the heads up - but that would be speculation on my part. They were both the greatest of their time. For me, that's sufficient. To attempt to belittle and ridicule those who diasagree with me would simply be ostentatious on my part.
  7. 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 that your opinion is wrong. I'm simply expressing another option. You would have that opinion excluded simply because it doesn't support that either Jack or Tiger as the GOAT - I've got no real problem with that other than it limits the discussion to only two points of view. As I've said before, I think that "neither" is a valid answer to the original question. I've enjoyed reading this thread. I've learned quite a bit from some of the posts here. It has been very informative in many regards. To make you happy, however, I will cease to post any more on this topic. It was never my intention to be derisive. I make every attempt to always post with an attitude of respect. I apologize to anyone who has found my views and thoughts to otherwise. I hope you have a great evening.
  8. 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.
  9. 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? Have a great day.
  10. 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.
  11. 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 become important variables when trying to compare players from different time frames. We can say, with a great deal of certainty, that Tiger and Jack were the best of their time. They played the same courses, with the same equipment, and in mostly the same conditions as all of their contemporaries. Crossing generations causes additional variables to come into play, whether you agree or not.
  12. 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, but I simply don't think that because I didn't pick either of the two golfers that my views should be excluded from the discussion. Have a great day!
  13. Some people believe that you can't compare athletes across different generations due to the multitude of variables that are involved. I would suggest that it is also a valid response to "Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?".
  14. There are people who simply believe this is true, whether you agree with it or not.
  15. Just wondered what your criteria was for that conclusion. 👍
  16. Just out of curiosity, what do you think makes the courses of today more difficult than the courses of previous generations?
  17. Tiger's career stats are more impressive than those Nicklaus, except for the obvious majors victories. Based on that, I would conclude that Tiger's career record was more impressive.
  18. Actually, you are calling me ignorant and stupid when you espouse my beliefs to be so. That's ok, though, because I'm used to it - I'm married. 😉 It's all good - I'm not offended. I'm a scientist. Scientists deal in facts that have or can be proven. If you cannot absolutely prove it, it is hypothetical, conjecture, opinion, or whatever you wish to call it. No amount of statistics and supposition can prove which golfer would have been more dominant had they both played in the same era. You have your beliefs, which I respect. I understand why you believe the way that you do. I do not share your views. That is OK. We don't need approval from one another.
  19. I agree with this, except that I'd even go so far as to even include other statistics. They are all subject to variables that cannot be quantified for the different generations imo. And what proof is there that Snead, or Hogan, or Jones would not have been better than both? There is none, other than speculation. My view is that the best we can do is to say that each was the best of their time. We can speculate as to who would have been the most dominant, but there is no proof.
  20. Just giving my opinion, like so many others. Maybe you are right..... maybe I should have just kept silent. I do enjoy the discussion, however, so long as it is kept civil. That's your opinion, and you are completely entitled to it. I'd respectfully disagree with you, however. I will give you this: If there was ever a sport where I believe that the greatest athlete could be identified, it would most likely be certain track and field events. There are far fewer variables in the competitions where many track and field events are concerned - thereby making it possible to potentially crown someone in those events.
  21. My response has nothing to do with the personality of the individual. As I read it, my response is on topic, you just misinterpreted. I never said anyone wasn't great, just that I don't believe in identifying athletes as the greatest ever. I have no dog in this hunt, other than an opinion I don't claim to support anyone for GOAT. Misinterpreted. I probably should have just said the greatest to ever play professional golf.
  22. While incredibly impressive, none of this proves that Tiger is the greatest golfer of all time. It proves that he has the best records and statistics (excluding major wins), but not that he is the greatest person to ever play professional golf, imo. Upset over opinions from people who I do not know posting on a message board? No, not me. We can all have different opinions and discuss them rationally, if we choose to do so. I do not believe that any athlete, in any sport, can be named the best ever. There are simply too many variables for me to believe that anyone can ever positively be crowned in that fashion. That is my view. Have a great day!
  23. Comparing statistics from two completely different experiments, with different parameters, makes it subjective. If all athletes competed with the same parameters, the statistics would become more objective. In science, you do not set up two completely different experiments to test two opposing viewpoints. That is the case whenever comparing any athlete from one generation to an athlete from a completely different generation. In that case, the previous post you submitted with all of the reasons Jack was not the GOAT was not necessary. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. I think you should be able to see how that post seemed to me to suggest that I was espousing Jack as the GOAT. Definition of hypothetical : involving or being based on a suggested idea or theory : being or involving conjecture In my view, it does. Regardless, I've enjoyed the discussion and I'm off to play a round of golf. Maybe I'll end up the goat (although it will no doubt carry a completely different meaning when applied to me). 😀
  24. If you bothered to read my posts, you would see that I'm not advocating for Jack as the GOAT.
  25. So it is. Creature of habit, I am...... 😳 Qualifying it in that manner, in my opinion, it becomes a more objective discussion. Discussing accomplishments during a career to attempt to quantify who had the best career is much more doable, imo. Tiger clearly has the statistical advantage if you are basing your decision on that criteria (except for the 18>15 category). If choosing one or the other based solely on current stats, I'd choose Tiger in spite of the 18>15 (which Tiger, I think, said was the benchmark). I was blessed to be able to watche both Jack and Tiger play. They were both great golfers, but I think that Tiger is the more skillful of the two. I think that, given an even playing field and a career to compete against each other, Tiger would have beaten Jack more than he would have lost. My contention is that we simply cannot know that. Its not quite that simple, imo. There can be a multitude of factors that could potentially affect the statistics. Now, you are just being silly and trying to put words in my mouth. One tournament does not make a career. One victory does not make one team or individual better than all others for perpetuity.
×
×
  • 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...