- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: IF Tiger beats Jack's major record...
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:29 am to texastiger38
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:29 am to texastiger38
The old guys using inferior equipment shot scores as low as todays players ( Al Gieberger Mr. 59 ). True, not as many players in any given tournamet had a legit chance to win, but in their prime, with new technology, several players from the 60's through the 80's could play toe to toe with today's best. But, imo, Jack is the best ever.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:35 am to billybobtiger
quote:
The old guys using inferior equipment shot scores as low as todays players ( Al Gieberger Mr. 59 ).
courses were much easier.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:37 am to texastiger38
If he beats jack, yes he will be considered the best all time
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:48 am to lsugolf1105
I have been playing golf since I was 10 years old.( I am 57 now ) I have played 100's of courses around the country and they seem no harder today than in the past. I am playing the best golf of my life now. Shot my lowest score ever (68) 3 weeks ago. Equipment has improved my game that much.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 12:01 pm to billybobtiger
quote:
no harder today than in the past.
go watch tiger at augusta in 1997. dude was hitting wedges into the par 5's.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 12:18 pm to lsugolf1105
quote:
go watch tiger at augusta in 1997. dude was hitting wedges into the par 5's.
Tiger-proofing man. They couldn't stand him throwing up -18 on the scorecard at Augusta.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 1:04 pm to texastiger38
that's an interesting question.... do you think Jack Nicklaus is currently the best of all time?
Personally, I do not.
Personally, I do not.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 1:30 pm to lsugolf1105
quote:
if tiger got to 19? jack would still be the greatest?
I am not saying Tiger or Jack would be better, I am saying Jack would be considered the greatest because of Tiger getting in the way of his own success.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 1:56 pm to tigerfan0082
quote:
I am not saying Tiger or Jack would be better, I am saying Jack would be considered the greatest because of Tiger getting in the way of his own success.
if tiger gets to 19, no logical argument supports jack being better.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 2:15 pm to lsugolf1105
If Tiger beats it I will consider him the GOAT. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't entertain someone's argument for Jack.
I'm not so sure its as cut and dry as a lot of people think.
I'm not so sure its as cut and dry as a lot of people think.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 2:55 pm to texastiger38
quote:
I'm not so sure its as cut and dry as a lot of people think.
more wins, more majors, better winning %, more money titles, more POY's, more scoring avg. titles. i don't even think it is close.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 3:58 pm to unbeWEAVEable
quote:
he doesn't nearly live up to Palmer, Player, Ballesteros, Jones, and many others. For them, golf was more than a game. You can count Tiger in this grouping once he stops treating the game like entertainment
Dude just stop... Seriously seve better than tiger
Posted on 4/9/12 at 4:21 pm to nugget
quote:this. people love jack and hate tiger,that's really the only reason nobody will say this now
Since golf is so much more competitive now, tiger is already the goat
Posted on 4/9/12 at 4:26 pm to billybobtiger
quote:
The old guys using inferior equipment shot scores as low as todays players ( Al Gieberger Mr. 59 ). True, not as many players in any given tournamet had a legit chance to win, but in their prime, with new technology, several players from the 60's through the 80's could play toe to toe with today's best. But, imo, Jack is the best ever.
There
You
GO.
WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 4/9/12 at 4:28 pm to billybobtiger
quote:
I have been playing golf since I was 10 years old.( I am 57 now ) I have played 100's of courses around the country and they seem no harder today than in the past. I am playing the best golf of my life now. Shot my lowest score ever (68) 3 weeks ago. Equipment has improved my game that much.
the improvement in equipment has been matched with a (relative) equal increase in course longevity and overall difficulty.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 4:30 pm to dukke v
As technology developed, all technology developed. The greens are so much harder today and faster its not even funny. So your argument has no ground. I guarantee most of these players could play 40 years ago and be just as competitive. The equipment may change, but the swings will never and thats the life blood of these players.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 4:31 pm to texastiger38
quote:
Would you regard him as the best golfer of all time?
there is a difference between best golfer and most important golfer.
under your hypothetical, he would clearly be the best golfer of all time.
at this point, nothing he does will probably ever make him a more important golfer than palmer or jack.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 4:35 pm to Sherman Klump
quote:
. So your argument has no ground. I
Its not MY aregument.
BUT. The players back in the 60's could play with the players today with the equipment. I wonder how good Tiger would be with the equipment that Jack played with back then???? MY answer??? NOT as well as Jack.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 4:36 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
at this point, nothing he does will probably ever make him a more important golfer than palmer or jack.
There is NO argument for this. Its pure FACT.
Popular
Back to top


2






