- 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 6:11 pm to dukke v
Posted on 4/9/12 at 6:11 pm to dukke v
quote:
RORY is a gREAT Golfer BUT will Not win more than 8 IMO.
I don't think I can say that yet, Tiger only had 1 at 22 as well and look how that has worked out for him.
I know they aren't even in the same universe as of now, but Rory won a major by 8 strokes, not many golfers have EVER done that.
1
Posted on 4/9/12 at 6:11 pm to Roaad
quote:
It isn't about golf to them
There it is. If you don't think the black guy is better, you're racist. Lee instead of JJ? Racist!!! Didn't vote for Obama? Racist!!! Tiger isn't the best? Racist!!!
shite is really old. Tiger is on a path to be the greatest ever without a doubt. At the moment, he simply isn't yet. Not only does Jack have more major wins, he finished top 2 In THIRTY SEVEN MAJORS. Tiger still has a lot of work to do to overtake Jack. That being said, I'm one of the few on here that fully expects him to do so.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 6:14 pm to texastiger38
quote:
Tiger only had 1 at 22 as well and look how that has worked out for him
Lets be real here. Rory has MUCH, MUCH better players to do this against than Tiger did.
quote:
but Rory won a major by 8 strokes, not many golfers have EVER done that.
Tiger won Pebble by 15 strokes. ONE Large Major win does not impress me. He also had a HUGE lead at Augusta last year and failed HUGE. I know he will learn from this, BUT...................
Posted on 4/9/12 at 6:15 pm to JJ27
quote:
I'm one of the few on here that fully expects him to do so.
REALLY?????????? Based on what????
Posted on 4/9/12 at 6:53 pm to dukke v
He has won 14 majors and 72 pga events, he won a pga event by 5 shots 2 weeks ago and he is 36. I say it is easier to argue he will do it versus he won't.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 7:17 pm to dukke v
To quote The Rolling Stones, "Time is on my side.". He only needs 4 to tie and 5 to pass him.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 7:45 pm to JJ27
quote:which is the more amazing stat.
he finished top 2 In THIRTY SEVEN MAJORS
Posted on 4/9/12 at 7:58 pm to Roaad
quote:
Anyone who says that Jack was better than Tiger. . .
. . .It wouldn't matter if Tiger won the next 19 consecutive major tournies, they'd still find an excuse.
It isn't about golf to them.
Jack played against better competition for starters. And majors favor Jack as well.
But, what is it for those who think Jack had the better career if it's not about golf? Do tell.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 8:00 pm to JJ27
Top 2 in 39 majors
Oh, nevermind I included the amateur wins. 37 it is.
Oh, nevermind I included the amateur wins. 37 it is.
This post was edited on 4/9/12 at 8:03 pm
Posted on 4/9/12 at 8:24 pm to DP40
The comparing competition is flat out stupid. Tiger had no competition because he blew the competition away. He didn't allow for the competition to win.
If we cannot compare the competition they went against, lets just compare the pure scoring numbers on the courses. Competition asides, Tiger flat out dominated these courses, like NO ONE ever has. He won four fricking majors in a row, which has only been done by Bobby Jones, and that was before the Masters existed.
Tiger isn't the best statistically yet. There is a legitimate argument though that his dominant run of the late 90s and 2000s is grounds for him to be the best.
If we cannot compare the competition they went against, lets just compare the pure scoring numbers on the courses. Competition asides, Tiger flat out dominated these courses, like NO ONE ever has. He won four fricking majors in a row, which has only been done by Bobby Jones, and that was before the Masters existed.
Tiger isn't the best statistically yet. There is a legitimate argument though that his dominant run of the late 90s and 2000s is grounds for him to be the best.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 8:27 pm to Sherman Klump
quote:
The comparing competition is flat out stupid. Tiger had no competition because he blew the competition away. He didn't allow for the competition to win.
If we cannot compare the competition they went against, lets just compare the pure scoring numbers on the courses. Competition asides, Tiger flat out dominated these courses, like NO ONE ever has. He won four fricking majors in a row, which has only been done by Bobby Jones, and that was before the Masters existed.
Tiger isn't the best statistically yet. There is a legitimate argument though that his dominant run of the late 90s and 2000s is grounds for him to be the best.
Solid Post.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 8:37 pm to JJ27
quote:
Tiger isn't the best? Racist!!!
I don't like Tiger but I have nothing against orientals.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 8:40 pm to Sherman Klump
The comparing competition doesn't fit your narrative of Tiger being best ever so dismiss it.
You want just scoring numbers to prove your narrative? Really, that's all you have?
Jack has most major wins, top-2, top-5, top-10's. Nicklaus achieved the career slam quicker than Woods, etc.
Jones got the Slam if I'm not mistaken, Tiger didn't. Ben Hogan achieved the "Slam" too even though it was just 3 majors.
Advantage: The Bear.
You want just scoring numbers to prove your narrative? Really, that's all you have?
Jack has most major wins, top-2, top-5, top-10's. Nicklaus achieved the career slam quicker than Woods, etc.
Jones got the Slam if I'm not mistaken, Tiger didn't. Ben Hogan achieved the "Slam" too even though it was just 3 majors.
Advantage: The Bear.
This post was edited on 4/9/12 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 4/9/12 at 8:54 pm to DP40
quote:
Jack has most major wins, top-2, top-5, top-10's. Nicklaus achieved the career slam quicker than Woods, etc.
Jack's career is also finished. So advantage Jack because he played for 15 more years than Tiger has so far.
quote:
Jones got the Slam if I'm not mistaken, Tiger didn't. Ben Hogan achieved the "Slam" too even though it was just 3 majors.
Jones got the slam when it was US amateur, British amateur, US Open, and British open. Tiger still won 4 majors in a row which hadn't been done since Bobby Jones.
I don't think a single person is saying Tiger is better than Jack statistically now, they are saying hypothetically (which is why I started this thread) if Tiger beats Jack's records would you think he is better.
This post was edited on 4/9/12 at 8:56 pm
Posted on 4/9/12 at 8:56 pm to DP40
I never said Jack wasn't the best buddy. Right now he probably is, and 99% because he has 4 more majors than Tiger.
If Tiger wins 4 more majors, not even 5, there is absolutely no argument. Which is the answer to the original post.
And winning four majors in a row is a hell of a lot more impressive to me then winning 4 different majors over a career.
ETA: And I said scoring numbers because that is only thing is accurately measurable from the 1800s to today. The scores never change, a birdie is a birdie, and a bogey is a bogey.
If Tiger wins 4 more majors, not even 5, there is absolutely no argument. Which is the answer to the original post.
And winning four majors in a row is a hell of a lot more impressive to me then winning 4 different majors over a career.
ETA: And I said scoring numbers because that is only thing is accurately measurable from the 1800s to today. The scores never change, a birdie is a birdie, and a bogey is a bogey.
This post was edited on 4/9/12 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 4/9/12 at 9:01 pm to texastiger38
quote:
I don't think a single person is saying Tiger is better than Jack statistically now....
Uhhhh
quote:
There is a legitimate argument though that his dominant run of the late 90s and 2000s is grounds for him to be the best.
More like '02-'08, but ok, the "late-90's and 2000's" including that last 3 years.
That quote is one big freaking fail.
Borg gets lots of love as best ever in Tennis or in the argument, but he also gets hammered for his lack of longevity. His run may have been the best ever, but that doesn't make him the best ever ala Tiger.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 9:05 pm to lsuroadie
quote:
If he does break the record there is room to call both the greatest. Jack's record was was accomplished with prehistoric Neanderthal golf equipment, no technology re diet, exercise, noone mapped and recorded details and scouted golf courses like they do today.
Good point and I don't even like GOLF.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 9:08 pm to DP40
Tiger achieved the slam faster than jack. I think a year and a half faster. Basically, tiger did everything faster than jack.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 9:08 pm to DP40
quote:
Borg gets lots of love as best ever in Tennis or in the argument, but he also gets hammered for his lack of longevity. His run may have been the best ever, but that doesn't make him the best ever ala Tiger.
I'm not disputing that. But in 10 years we'll know a lot more.
quote:
More like '02-'08, but ok, the "late-90's and 2000's" including that last 3 years.
his best "run" would be from PGA championship 1999-US Open 2008 he won 13 majors in 37 tries.
This post was edited on 4/9/12 at 9:10 pm
Posted on 4/9/12 at 9:10 pm to bayou2003
quote:
Good point
Not really. It's not like Jack was using inferior equipment to his competition. And golf courses we're much shorter in Jack's days. In both eras, everyone had equal access to equipment and technology.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News