I was just kidding. I agree with you, and I just listed 12 guys that would be no surprise if they kept that streak going.
Tiger Wins
- Thread starter hp12c
- Start date
- Status
Lindsey Newman
New
Anyone who thinks that the equipment to course challenge ratio is the same is on dope. The equipment is so much more forgiving.
Equipment has allowed so many players to be competitive it's an absolute joke. The driver and the ball are WAY easier to hit straight. You can hit these drivers all over the face. You can swing much more steeply now because of the ball. It's not even up for conjecture in my opinion. I think a lot of today's players get away with murder in some of there swings.
I know I have benefitted from today's equipment for sure
Equipment has allowed so many players to be competitive it's an absolute joke. The driver and the ball are WAY easier to hit straight. You can hit these drivers all over the face. You can swing much more steeply now because of the ball. It's not even up for conjecture in my opinion. I think a lot of today's players get away with murder in some of there swings.
I know I have benefitted from today's equipment for sure
Last edited:
My point about it balancing out is for the Tour only. Even Par is still good enough to win a US Open. The Masters has the scores that Ray Floyd and Tiger shot seem very unlikely in the future. I went to the US Open in 1980 at Baltusrol. Nicklaus and Weiskopf both shot 63 in the 1st round. The winning score was 272. In 2007 it was 276 set up less severe for the PGA. For the club player that has been playing the same course for 30 years it must be much easier now, unless they have added yardage to the course.
DC, I think this just illustrates how Watson (8 majors, 39 tour wins) and Player (9 majors and 24 tour wins) and Trevino (6 majors and 29 tour wins) were better competition than what Tiger dealt with in the majors. Watson was 10 years younger than Jack and was hot in '77. What player did Tiger beat in a major that was on the same level as Watson? At Merion, Jack was over par in the final round and the playoff, probably not his best. I was at the '68 Open at Oak Hill and I carried the score sign for Trevino in the last round. Walked ever step with him. He hit the ball fantastic that day and if he would have putted better, that 4 shot victory could have easily been 8. Jack had a good last round, but played mediocre for the first three rounds. Bert Yancey had the 54 hole lead. Struggled on Sunday playing along side Lee.
Tiger has been beaten in majors when he played well. By Immelman '08 Masters, Cabrera '07 US Open, Campbell '05 US Open, and don't forget Rich Beem at the '02 PGA. YE Yang got the best of him also at Hazeltine even though Tiger had a below average last round. Even if Tiger pulls off winning 19 majors, in my mind he still won't be the greatest majors player. I just can't overlook 37 firsts and seconds and 56 top fives. Jack also won some majors handily too. '65 Masters by 9, 67 US Open and 73 PGA by 4, 80 PGA by 7, and two other majors by 3. Against great champion players, Jack dominated the majors. I know, Tiger is flat out awesome, but, I can't help remembering just how great Jack was too.
If Tiger got to 19, and 83 total, he would not be greatest, is that your view?
The "who's better, Tiger or Jack" debate is one that has always fascinated me. And it's interesting that those who opt for Jack regale us with a slew of absolutely superb players - his contemporaries and adversaries - who, with one very glaring stand-out, are all American.
Can you imagine players from Northern Ireland, Korea, Fiji, Australia, The United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and others being so competitive in Jack's era? The fact that 15 different players from all over have won the last 15 majors is, at least to my mind, proof of the embarrassment of riches that the game currently has. Please remember that up until the advent of the OGWR, many quality European and Antipodean players were locked out of three of the majors, much to their chagrin.
Of course, I could be totally wrong and Jack might very well be the best ever, regardless of what Tiger does from hereon in. But Tiger has had to, and still does contend with players from all over the world, whereas Jack really didn't. It still doesn't alter the fact that Jack might have waxed everybody, from wherever they hailed, but we'll never know...and with Tiger we do. And at the very minimum that should pop a couple of points in Tiger's credit column in the debate.
Can you imagine players from Northern Ireland, Korea, Fiji, Australia, The United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and others being so competitive in Jack's era? The fact that 15 different players from all over have won the last 15 majors is, at least to my mind, proof of the embarrassment of riches that the game currently has. Please remember that up until the advent of the OGWR, many quality European and Antipodean players were locked out of three of the majors, much to their chagrin.
Of course, I could be totally wrong and Jack might very well be the best ever, regardless of what Tiger does from hereon in. But Tiger has had to, and still does contend with players from all over the world, whereas Jack really didn't. It still doesn't alter the fact that Jack might have waxed everybody, from wherever they hailed, but we'll never know...and with Tiger we do. And at the very minimum that should pop a couple of points in Tiger's credit column in the debate.
Last edited:
Just Look at a player like Peter Thompson. He won 5 British Opens, and while the fields weren't nearly as strong as they are today, he was obviously a hell of a player as shown by his 9 victories on the US Senior Tour in 1985. He only played 5 US Opens and ZERO PGA Championships. What this says is that some top 10 players in the world at this time weren't even playing in all the Majors. Made things a little easier for Arnie and Jack if you ask me.
Its a good debate about 10 years premature IMO. At 36 years old their wins, tops 3s and 5s are very close. Let's see
It won't change the ' respective qualities of the fields' aspect of the debate (just one aspect of many), but I think that that is a good call there, DC.
Last edited:
right. the respective quality of the fields aspect of the debate is moot, purely academic, so much so that I say we let it go. OOPS. Thats my opinion on it so i guess i didnt let it go.
Lindsey Newman
New
Lest ye forget, there is one little thing about Tiger, a fondness for physical frailty.
right. the respective quality of the fields aspect of the debate is moot, purely academic, so much so that I say we let it go. OOPS. Thats my opinion on it so i guess i didnt let it go.
Very droll...
Jack didn't have the "benefit" of swing guru's overhauling his swing four times.This is the most unbelievable thing Tiger has done in my opinion.He is the best student of all time as he does EVERYTHING EXACTLY his instructor teaches and he makes it work.
Sure,Jack tweaked and tinkered with his swing like every golfer does but he essentially had the same upright swing his entire career.Tiger's 1997 swing and his 2012 swing is not even in the same solar system but throughout it all he still kept winning with 4 entirely different swings.
How many more majors would Tiger have won if he didn't waste so many years rebuilding his swing over and over again?I think Tiger is addicted to swing overhauls like Michael Jackson was to plastic surgery.
Sure,Jack tweaked and tinkered with his swing like every golfer does but he essentially had the same upright swing his entire career.Tiger's 1997 swing and his 2012 swing is not even in the same solar system but throughout it all he still kept winning with 4 entirely different swings.
How many more majors would Tiger have won if he didn't waste so many years rebuilding his swing over and over again?I think Tiger is addicted to swing overhauls like Michael Jackson was to plastic surgery.
The bottom line is Jack did what he had to do to beat the guys he was playing against and to pass Jones in majors, and Tiger is doing the same thing. The guy coming along second has an advantage in having a higher bar to shoot for. For jack the bar was 14. For Tiger the bar is 19. If the bar for jack was 21, I don't doubt he would have made it.
Jack did have a good family life as I have read but that helps your golf,not hurts it as Tiger has found out the hard way.The commitment is worth it in the end.
Jack was not known for his laziness.He prepared for majors better than any player bar perhaps Hogan.This may account for the fact he won so many majors but comparitively few other tournaments in relation to Tiger.Tiger has already surpassed Jack in total wins at 36 and will likely win 10 or 20 more if he stays healthy.
Jack was not known for his laziness.He prepared for majors better than any player bar perhaps Hogan.This may account for the fact he won so many majors but comparitively few other tournaments in relation to Tiger.Tiger has already surpassed Jack in total wins at 36 and will likely win 10 or 20 more if he stays healthy.
Lindsey Newman
New
I agree
gmbtempe
New
I could have sworn I saw a interview recently with Nicklaus and he was saying in some ways he underachieved because once he had a family he never practiced as hard as he should have.
That would apply to every player that has a family so that argument is moot.Can you name a player who is still single at 30?
The difference I am talking about is a happy family vs an unhappy one.
- Status