OT: Tiger and Phil
- Thread starter Cardsstink
- Start date
I'll take Tiger in his prime over anyone.
That is right. This can be watched nearly every weekend during the tour. Not sure why anyone would pay to watch it.
It was free on Bleacher Report. Had technical problems and couldn't charge anyone. Other outlets didn't have that problem.
Tiger in his prime = Tyson in his prime
Nobody could touch either of them.
Best careers....Nicklaus and Joe Louis
I agree that those two are 1 and 1a. My thoughts are that Jack hit it longer and straighter than anyone in his era, and this was when they played wound balls and persimmon drivers. No telling how long he would have been if he had todays equipment. Also, some of Tiger's drives that end up 15-20 yards off the fairway, would have been in another zip code had he been using Jack's equipment. I started playing in 1962 and trust me, there is absolutely no comparison in equipment. I am still a 7 hdcp at age 67, but a lot of that is the advancements in equipment.
Problem with Tiger is that he will always have that question hanging over his head.
No disrespect but I imagine 99 percent of people over 55 would fight for Jack as GOAT.
I met Monty right after a practice round at Hualalai, at the Mitsubishi Championship on the Big Island this past January. I had always thought he would be a butt, but I was presently surprised. He was very cordial and free with his time. He had played his practice round by himself, but with a lady in the cart.
It's because we saw how good he was, and know the equipment he had to play with. No disrespect to Tiger, but if he had to play with the equipment of the 60's and 70's
he could not play the game that won him all his majors. There was no bomb and gouge. You had to hit fairways and work the ball. Just a different set of skills required to play back then.
Sorry but Tigers equipment wasn't anything like now when he came up and he can work the ball with the best of them. His short game and putting he would be just as great.
I would think that he was right on 55. Jack won a couple of majors in 1980, and someone aged 55 would have been 17.
Not like Tigers prime. When Jack says he was better that is all I need. He has said it for 20 years.
I agree. His short game would transfer, but they had gotten away from wound, balata balls by the early 90's and they were using titanium drivers instead of persimmon. Unless you have actually played both, it is impossible to understand the huge difference there is. There is a difference in equipment now, and when he first came on tour, but it is not like he was playing 1970's era equipment. It is like someone who played balata and persimmon going back and playing equipment from the time of Bobby Jones. Just no comparison. As far as working the ball, it is not that you can't shape shots, but back in Jack's time you had to do it, because it was almost impossible to hit a straight shot with the equipment you had. that is why when you hit it offline, it was way offline. Misses today are minimal.
That is because Jack is one of the greatest sportsmen, ever. He would never say he was better. Don't get me wrong, Tiger would have been great in any era. I guess the difference in equipment and course conditions will always leave room for comparisons. Whether it was Bobby Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus or Tiger, they all would have been great if you transferred them to another era, with different equipment. Like I said, Jack and Tiger are 1 and 1a, and you can give one or the other an edge and be able to make an argument for either.
Jack was dominant in the 60's and early 70's and Tom Watson was the man in the late 70's and early 80's.
So you’re assuming Tiger wouldn’t have been abke to adapt to how the game was played back then. Unfair assessment.
The better equipment/training argument can be made in all sports, and I believe it is relevant. Race cars back then vs today is like comparing a car with power steering to one without. Baseball...Nolan Ryan once threw 250 pitches in one game. Football was much more like rugby than what you see today. Basketball they actually called traveling and palming. Tennis they had wooden rackets. Only comparison you can make is how did Player A fare vs the competition he had vs Player B? Didn't Nicklaus finish second in majors like 19 times?
Tiger or any other great player of today would have been great 50-100 years ago just like great players of old would be great today. Equipment has nothing to do with a player’s talent/abilities/greatness in golf because that select group of players would adapt to anything you put in their hands. Most pros would for that matter. Jack, Jones, etc would have adapted to the fitness side of elite golf today.
The players who have benefitted greatly or the most from the advancement of equipment is the amateur/hacks/older folks who need the help. Pros are going to hit the middle of the club face the majority of the time.
At their best, IMO, Tiger is the best to ever play the game. Looking at their overall careers, Jack is the best. Not even sure Phil is in the Top 10.
The players who have benefitted greatly or the most from the advancement of equipment is the amateur/hacks/older folks who need the help. Pros are going to hit the middle of the club face the majority of the time.
At their best, IMO, Tiger is the best to ever play the game. Looking at their overall careers, Jack is the best. Not even sure Phil is in the Top 10.
You must be too young to remember, but Jack won more than in the 60's and early 70's. He won the 75 Masters and PGA, the 78 British Open, the 80 US Open and PGA, and the 86 Masters. Watson was the best player at the end of Jack's career, but he started in the early 70's and only won a total of 8 Majors, through the 90's, 5 of which were the British Open.
I agree with everything you say, except the part that only hacks and older folks benefitted from the new equipment. Yes, it helps high handicappers keep it in the fairway, and maybe get an extra 10 yards off the tee, but the ones who benefit the most are the pros. Just look at the tour stats on driving distance. They continue to get longer every year, and it is the driver, and the ball. The guys that generate 115 mph clubhead speed, or greater, are the ones who benefit the most from the equipment. The average driving distance on tour is 30 yards longer than 20 years ago.
Had no interest in a made for TV event, playing for other people's money, settled under the lights on a par 3 course (did they finish at Mason Headley? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye
If they really want to make it interesting, get Rory, Justin Rose, Dustin Johnson and Brooks Koepka, 2 man teams, but they each put up $500K of their own money. Or better yet, a 4 man game of Wolf, and each guy ponies up his own cash. Winner donates to a charity of his choice.
If they really want to make it interesting, get Rory, Justin Rose, Dustin Johnson and Brooks Koepka, 2 man teams, but they each put up $500K of their own money. Or better yet, a 4 man game of Wolf, and each guy ponies up his own cash. Winner donates to a charity of his choice.
That's because we saw him play. You didn't. Also consider the amount of tape on Tiger in competition vs the amount on Jack. Everything Tiger has done on a golf course is recorded. You can't say that about Jack and there is no doubt he hit shots that would rival the best of Tiger.
Even I can hit golf shots that are just as good as what Tiger hits. He just hits them more often than I do.
Your opinion that he's better than Tiger is no more than your opinion. It can't be proven. So whatever floats your boat. Lucky Jack. He didn't have all his horrendous shots on tape. I was also at the last Masters he won, so I guess I saw him play.
We can use metrics. Are you using majors won? How about top 5 finishes in majors? Maybe you're using money won on tour. 37 top 2 finishes in majors is a very tall mountain. Tell me what Tiger has done that even remotely compares to that stat.
I was at the last Masters Jack played. I'm not that far from 55. So you taking offense to age with your smart remark that I didn't see him means nothing to me. Again, you can't say one is better than the other when they didn't play head to head in the same field. I didn't say who water better. Feel free to continue to stomp your foot on the ground and say Jack was better. It's humorous, and infantile.
And, Jack had 9 third place finishes in majors making it 46 top 3 finishes. Yep, Tiger is right on his heels. Thanks for playing, it was fun.
Player,Arnie,Trevino and Watson and etc....Sorry but game has changed but the top 10 from Jacks era was great.Tiger had who....It’s like people who don’t put Larry Bird and Magic into the conversation with Jordan.They were great and get more penalized because of there head to head and back and forth.Jack was the best when there was some really greats with bad equipment.
He shot a 64 on Sunday at the PGA to finish 2nd. Had as good a year at majors as Rory or Spieth did and neither of them had back surgery last year, I would say he has as good a chance as anyone to win a major.