- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tiger and Phil
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:38 pm to ForeLSU
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:38 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
time frame comparisons are much more relevant at this point.
If Tiger retires early then yes, time fram comparison much more valid. If he leaves cause of injury or has the biggest dropoff ever then no.
Durability and longevity are things to consider when comparing guys.
1
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:39 pm to ForeLSU
Jack played against some gamers. Palmer, Trevino, Watson, Floyd, Player. The list can go on and on. Tiger is incredible but just doesnt have the competition Jack had. The field wets itself any time tiger gets close. Jack also finished with something like 17 runner ups. Until Tiger is done it is impossible to judge.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:40 pm to ForeLSU
I think the context argument kills Tiger, actually. Jack's contemporaries were so much better. Here is a list of every golfer to win 5 majors in the last 50 years:
1. Nicklaus 18
2. Woods, 14
3. Gary Player, 9
4. Tom Watson, 8
5. Arnold Palmer, 7
6. Nick Faldo, 6
(tie) Lee Trevino, 6
8. Seve Ballesteros, 5
Not one is a contemporary of Tiger. Quite simply, there is no Trevino or Watson on the Tour. And that is why Jack is better. His accomplishment looks more impressive when you think about who he had to beat. Tiger beat Vijay Singh.
1. Nicklaus 18
2. Woods, 14
3. Gary Player, 9
4. Tom Watson, 8
5. Arnold Palmer, 7
6. Nick Faldo, 6
(tie) Lee Trevino, 6
8. Seve Ballesteros, 5
Not one is a contemporary of Tiger. Quite simply, there is no Trevino or Watson on the Tour. And that is why Jack is better. His accomplishment looks more impressive when you think about who he had to beat. Tiger beat Vijay Singh.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:42 pm to tigerguy121
quote:
Durability and longevity are things to consider when comparing guys.
Not to mention Jack drove to and from many of the tour stops with his Family while Tiger gets whisked away on his leer jet.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:43 pm to Baloo
I get what your saying, but those big names were the only competition so of course they have a shite load of majors. Today anyone can win. It is not dominated by 4 or 5 guys because the competition is that much better.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:43 pm to BoomT
quote:
I would have much rather have competed against Nicklaus competition than what Tiger has to compete with. Jack was great, but what Tiger does on a golf course is unreal.
I think Tiger is better, but I think the guys Jack played against were probably better competitors. Tiger has no one that is as tough as Watson was, in his prime. Floyd and Trevino were also tough as nails when they were on their game. These days a guy can be on his game for 63 holes and fold like a cheap tent if Tiger's in the hunt.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:45 pm to Baloo
quote:
Jack's contemporaries were so much better.
The depth of the fields were horrible back in Jack's day compared to now. The equipment and the level of swing training has leveled off the playing field so much that you have guys down to the mini tours that can really play, which wasn't the case before. It's even more impressive that Tiger has dominated like he has considering how deep the fields are with talent
This post was edited on 4/13/09 at 7:46 pm
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:46 pm to Baloo
quote:
I think the context argument kills Tiger, actually. Jack's contemporaries were so much better. Here is a list of every golfer to win 5 majors in the last 50 years:
see subsequent post...but the context argument is spread over the first 10 years of their career, so competition is somewhat accounted for.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:50 pm to usc6158
quote:
The depth of the fields were horrible back in Jack's day compared to now
depth is irrelevant...how the top 10-15 "compete" is really the only factor. How well Johnny Mack Spikes can shoot on a given day doesn't mean squat.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:53 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
depth is irrelevant...how the top 10-15 "compete" is really the only factor. How well Johnny Mack Spikes can shoot on a given day doesn't mean squat.
it means it's tougher to truly dominate since there is a lot more parity. You don't see the top guys dominate like they used to other than Tiger because the overall field is much better.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:56 pm to usc6158
To much parity. No one is able to consistently handle the pressure of a major because they rarely get there. Jacks contemporaries got there often enough not to get rattled and would challenge him. I love Phil but he gets there often and still is not able to handle it most of the time.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 7:59 pm to BoomT
quote:
Not to mention the level of competition. I would have much rather have competed against Nicklaus competition than what Tiger has to compete with.
Like I said in a thread a few days ago. The top 5-10 golfers Jack faced >>>>> the top 5-10 Tiger face(d/s), but the overall depth today is better. I'd say their comp is probably equal, just in different ways.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 8:25 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
I think the biggest difference when comparing Tiger and Jack is the time period as it relates to equipment advances.
For those that follow golf closely Greg Norman was an outspoken critic of square grooves back in 86/87. That was the controversy of the day.
Now we have 460 cc drivers. Jack played most of his career w/ a persimmon driver that was good for 260 w/ roll if hit between the screws. Also, the irons of the day were muscle back only and the shafts were extremely inconsistent w/ flex and kick point. Even the putters were a nothing more than a flat blade of steel or brass. No 3 golf ball design putters or chest high shafts.
The next big difference is the golf ball. The liquid center wound balata balls could be cut in half if skulled. They would also routinely spin back off the green. Todays balls can withstand several poor shots yet still give the player the ability to spin w/ much much more control.
Right now Jack Niclaus in his mid 60's probably drives the ball further than he did in his prime w/ the old persimmons.
Hard to say what Niclaus would have done if he had had today's equipment then.
Case in point, in '86 the hottest golfers were Norman and Tway. Tway played Ping Eye 2's. Once he got away from the Pings he never replicated that success.
So, this it's tough comparison to compare any records through time.
And if you agree this one is tough, don't get me started on the baseball home run record. Bonds record is a joke compared to Ruth's.
For those that follow golf closely Greg Norman was an outspoken critic of square grooves back in 86/87. That was the controversy of the day.
Now we have 460 cc drivers. Jack played most of his career w/ a persimmon driver that was good for 260 w/ roll if hit between the screws. Also, the irons of the day were muscle back only and the shafts were extremely inconsistent w/ flex and kick point. Even the putters were a nothing more than a flat blade of steel or brass. No 3 golf ball design putters or chest high shafts.
The next big difference is the golf ball. The liquid center wound balata balls could be cut in half if skulled. They would also routinely spin back off the green. Todays balls can withstand several poor shots yet still give the player the ability to spin w/ much much more control.
Right now Jack Niclaus in his mid 60's probably drives the ball further than he did in his prime w/ the old persimmons.
Hard to say what Niclaus would have done if he had had today's equipment then.
Case in point, in '86 the hottest golfers were Norman and Tway. Tway played Ping Eye 2's. Once he got away from the Pings he never replicated that success.
So, this it's tough comparison to compare any records through time.
And if you agree this one is tough, don't get me started on the baseball home run record. Bonds record is a joke compared to Ruth's.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 8:30 pm to specs1
quote:
I think the biggest difference when comparing Tiger and Jack is the time period as it relates to equipment advances.
I agree...but one can point to the toughness of the golf courses and the advancements in training as a counter argument.
I do tend to think the older guys were tougher. It wasn't easy to play 18, then play gin until 10, chase women until 2, drinking Scotch along the way...then tee off at 8am and shoot -5 the next day.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 8:37 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
toughness of the golf courses
Primarily due to length, which corresponds to the 460 cc driver.
It would be quite entertaining to take a persimmon driver to the range and have a few golfers try it and compare to their modern driver.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 8:38 pm to ForeLSU
if tiger got hit by a bus today and you said nicklaus was better than tiger, you must hate tiger. it is so obvious based on their records that tiger is better. people who won't admit it are in denial.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 8:42 pm to lsugolf1105
quote:
if tiger got hit by a bus today and you said nicklaus was better than tiger, you must hate tiger. it is so obvious based on their records that tiger is better. people who won't admit it are in denial.
That's a ridiculous statement. Most would agree that Tiger is the best in the world at this time and has been for about 10 years and probably will be for some time to come. However, comparing players whose primes are 25-30 years apart is quite difficult.
If Tiger wins more than 18 professional majors, and he probably will, then the vast majority will agree that he is the best of all time.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 8:46 pm to specs1
quote:
If Tiger wins more than 18 professional majors, and he probably will, then the vast majority will agree that he is the best of all time.
I've said I'll give him that distinction when he does it. But for all we know he could pull a Payne Stewart next week.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 8:47 pm to specs1
why don't people consider emmitt smith the greatest running back? why don't people consider bill russell the beast basketball player?? 18 majors is not the one and only test. tiger has won more earlier in his career, has a better winning percentage, was a better amateur, has every scoring record, every stat favors tiger. it is obvious.
Posted on 4/13/09 at 8:47 pm to lsugolf1105
quote:
people who won't admit it are in denial.
I'm not in denial, I know Tiger is an excellent golfer. Just at this point, I think Jack is still better. 18 Majors and an ungodly number of 2nd place finishes still trumps what Tiger has done so far.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News