Tiger Wins
- Thread starter hp12c
- Start date
- Status
I was thinking about these numbers today. If he's close to Jack with the majors, and he passes Snead, the debate will be on.
If he catches Jack in the majors, and gets those 9 wins to pass Snead, I don't know how anyone could, with a straight face, say that Tiger isn't the g.o.a.t., especially considering all of the self-induced hiccups along the way. Can you imagine where he'd be if he didn't have all of those swing change and controversy induced dry spells? The jury's still out of course, but it makes you think...
If he catches Jack in the majors, and gets those 9 wins to pass Snead, I don't know how anyone could, with a straight face, say that Tiger isn't the g.o.a.t., especially considering all of the self-induced hiccups along the way. Can you imagine where he'd be if he didn't have all of those swing change and controversy induced dry spells? The jury's still out of course, but it makes you think...
birly-shirly
New
Everything's relative to the field. Jack passed Hagen and Jones by, what, 7 titles? When Tiger re-defines the idea of what's possible in terms of his tournament record, the same way Jack did, then we'll talk...
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Nitro, I'm sorry but from most accounts, Tiger could hit many shots Jack didn't have.
Lindsey Newman
New
I'm am not old enough to have watched Nicklaus play in his prime. I graduated from Ohio State and I love Nicklaus, Muirfeld Village, Scioto and everything else (except his vomit of a redesign of #4 Scarlet). Also, I'm not a fan of Tiger at all.
If you think Nicklaus was the better total golfer so be it. Besides, now that Dariusz is apparently gone, we (this forum) need another "defender of the classic greats". Maybe you can start a blog where you write about how the "flying right elbow" is the key to automating the golf swing.
I was a freshman in college when I first saw Jack play and win at Baltusrol in 1967. He was an adolescent idol of mine and there is nothing I couldn't quote you about his record. If you were a kid growing up in the 60s in this country, and just starting to play golf, you wanted to be Jack or Arnold. Simple as that. There was a public dog track where i grew up playing, and one of the fondest memories of my youth was playing 3 balls: One was Jack, one was Arnold and mine. I beat those guys more times than you could count. I was a Jack idolator.
But...and I submit my opinion with all due respect, I think Tiger is a more complete player. Conditioning, deft touch around the greens, working the ball in both directions, controlling distances, winning percentage, and a sense of the moment like no athlete, Jordan possibly excepted, EVER. Consider that Tiger hits the ball a MILE in the air, be he MASTERED the Stinger! He has shots that just should not be part of his "pattern". This debate will continue ad infinitum; I am just stating my opinion. Again with deference to all who feel otherwise.
But...and I submit my opinion with all due respect, I think Tiger is a more complete player. Conditioning, deft touch around the greens, working the ball in both directions, controlling distances, winning percentage, and a sense of the moment like no athlete, Jordan possibly excepted, EVER. Consider that Tiger hits the ball a MILE in the air, be he MASTERED the Stinger! He has shots that just should not be part of his "pattern". This debate will continue ad infinitum; I am just stating my opinion. Again with deference to all who feel otherwise.
I say Nelson would have waxed both Jack and Tiger.If he didn't retire so soon he would have won 30 majors.
Stuff the diagonal stance and the flying elbow.
I say the diagonal dip is the key to automation and my ebook will be out soon.Prepare for some insults and name calling from my direction as I try to get some free publicity.
Stuff the diagonal stance and the flying elbow.
I say the diagonal dip is the key to automation and my ebook will be out soon.Prepare for some insults and name calling from my direction as I try to get some free publicity.
No, I don't necessarily think Jack was better over all, I'm suggesting he played on Tiger's level.
And, no, I have no desire to be a Dariusz like "defender of the classic greats." My impressions
have been formed by watching both players from today and the past practice and play.
As for Jack's record in the majors, just looking at the 18 victories doesn't tell the whole story.
He had 19 seconds and 8 thirds and a total of 54 top fives. No one even comes close to that
kind of performing. IIRC, Jack finished in the top 4 on the money list 17 years in a row. In my
opinion Jack's competition was better from the standpoint of players being winners. The guys
Jack competed against are all over the all time Majors win list and the all time wins list.
I've been a long time Tiger defender and think he is a phenomenal player and most likely will
go down as the greatest of all time, but, when I sit back and think about what I have actually
witnessed, if we could create a world where Tiger and Jack could compete against each other
in their primes, I feel Jack would deal with Tiger quite well. That is all.
I attended OSU too, back in the 60's. Brother-in-law and sister live in Upper Arlington and are
members at Scioto. Unfortunately, I don't get up there much any more. Plenty of great golf in
Columbus area for sure.
Lindsey Newman
New
Nitro7,
I agree that Jack would not be intimidated by Tiger. He faced every bit of of what Tiger has (intimidation wise) in Arnold Palmer and performed nicely. Jack was/is every bit as unique as Tiger mentally.
It's nice having Tiger playing well again because like it or not, he makes golf better to watch. I root for him to partially root against him and I do enjoy seeing those with above normal effort/commitment excel.
I agree that Jack would not be intimidated by Tiger. He faced every bit of of what Tiger has (intimidation wise) in Arnold Palmer and performed nicely. Jack was/is every bit as unique as Tiger mentally.
It's nice having Tiger playing well again because like it or not, he makes golf better to watch. I root for him to partially root against him and I do enjoy seeing those with above normal effort/commitment excel.
Love that quote. So very true. After what Tiger laid before us in the early 2000's, we've all felt like we've had our pockets picked while he's been 'away.' All these other fabulous golfers flooded into fill the void and we waited with baited breath to see a revitalized Tiger and how he'd deal with the Rorys, Lukes and Dustins. The definitive answer is just a little further down the road but it's already looking ominous isn't it?
Lindsey Newman
New
Tiger is....."a righteous infliction of retribution"
birly-shirly
New
wasn't that his mrs?
JThompson
New
To answer your question. . . without the swing changes Tiger wouldn't be playing golf anymore (at least not professionally). His swing changes were a direct result of knee issue that have plagued him for the last 10 years. He hurt his knee running and has since needed to change to prolong his career. I firmly believe, without injuries, Tiger would still be swinging like he did in 2001-2003.
...And we lost him for a couple of years, which is surprising "...'cos he ain't a set of................."
Lindsey
I agree Jack is as unique as Tiger mentally, I would just add physically also. Jack
carried some extra weight over the years (There were several years where he really
got control of his weight and looked really good), but, he was a very good athlete
and played other sports really well.
I believe if this Nicklaus showed up tomorrow, he would make things much more
difficult for Tiger to win another five majors.
Lindsey, I'm curious what you mean by Palmer had every bit of what Tiger has intimidation wise? The only thing I can think of is fan support in favor of Palmer. I would think that Jack only had to play a round or two with Palmer to realize that he (Jack) was a better player than Palmer. The fact is that neither Jack nor Tiger ever faced anyone good enough to intimidate them. I believe what we would have seen if they somehow could have faced each other, is a rise in both of their games and maybe something like we saw with Watson and Nicklaus at Turnberry in 77' where they blew away the field. I'm pretty sure neither of them would do what Bo Van Pelt did yesterday on the last 3 holes.
The difference is when Tiger plays his best, nobody else has a chance. Even when Jack played his best, he lost at times. Turnberry 77, Augusta 77 to same guy. Merion 71, Oak Hill 68 to same guy. Was Jack intimidated? No but guys like Trevino, Watson, Player all got to him at some point. The debate is eternal. But fun.
Lindsey Newman
New
My reference is to scale.
BUT, I'll play. So, you believe that Tiger's intimidation was like Mike Tyson's? Players paired with Tiger were scared he would embarrass them or that when he gave them a mean "look" they could not play well? If so, I call shenanigans.
"I" believe that Tigers following - like that of Arnold Palmers, often have more of an impact than almost anything. I have been in that "crowd" during a final round several times and I can assure you that it would take a few experiences to get used to it. It's absolutely an advantage to him (Tiger). THAT coupled with the fact that he is pretty much better than those he is playing with, is the cause of his dominance. Believe me, he does not scare Ernie Els, he's just a better golfer.
- Status