- 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: Jack Nicklaus vs. Tiger Woods Stats
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:06 am to lsugolf1105
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:06 am to lsugolf1105
LINK
Pretty good summary that discounts the competiton arguement, which by the way, is the only arguement that could be made to try to say Nicklaus was better than Tiger up to this point
Pretty good summary that discounts the competiton arguement, which by the way, is the only arguement that could be made to try to say Nicklaus was better than Tiger up to this point
0
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:08 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
what does this mean? tiger has better technology?
That's pretty self-explanatory. Which would you rather golf with, today's golf clubs or golf clubs from the 70's?
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:11 am to theunknownknight
quote:
That's pretty self-explanatory. Which would you rather golf with, today's golf clubs or golf clubs from the 70's?
how does this have anything to do with tiger vs nicklaus? i have never understood this point. you act like jack was playing with feather balls and palmer was playing with pro v's. all competitors at the time they play in have the same equipment.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:14 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
how does this have anything to do with tiger vs nicklaus? i have never understood this point. you act like jack was playing with feather balls and palmer was playing with pro v's. all competitors at the time they play in have the same equipment.
I understand your point But I am specifically addressing this:
Scoring Average - Tiger 70.63 Jack 71.64
Current clubs supposedly help you hit the ball further and more accurately than those from 30 + years ago.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:17 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Scoring Average - Tiger 70.63 Jack 71.64
Current clubs supposedly help you hit the ball further and more accurately than those from 30 + years ago.
the courses are a lot more difficult now. look at augusta. scores are actually higher now than before.
This post was edited on 7/24/09 at 11:19 am
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:34 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
so you are going to tell me the competition was just as deep in the 60's and 70's as it is today??
I never said it was deeper, I said it was stiffer. With the technology available back in the 70's the better ball strikers had a significant advantage over the field than what they would have with today's equipment.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:39 am to The Darrow Kid
quote:
With the technology available back in the 70's the better ball strikers had a significant advantage over the field than what they would have with today's equipment.
exactly, you proved my point. guys that have no business winning shoot -20 and win. that is why it is so difficult to win now.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:41 am to lsugolf1105
who exactly is tiger's competition? the field is more deep, but is filled with average talent. there is no superstar besides tiger in his era.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:43 am to lsugolf1105
quote:
the courses are a lot more difficult now. look at augusta. scores are actually higher now than before.
They made the course longer which benefits who....?
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:44 am to pnut53088
quote:
there is no superstar besides tiger in his era.
why does one have to be a "superstar" to ber considered more than average talent?
Phil Mickelson wouldn't be classified as a "superstar?"
He has plenty of competition, jsut because those guys didn't/haven't had HOF careers doesn't mean the seasons they challeneged Tiger that they weren't every bit as good as the guys Jack had to deal with.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:46 am to pnut53088
quote:
who exactly is tiger's competition? the field is more deep, but is filled with average talent. there is no superstar besides tiger in his era.
mickelson, els, singh, there are a lot of guys with tremendous amounts of talent. what you fail to realize is that if there are 150 guys that can win, chances are someone is going to have a great week. does bob may have as much talent as tom watson. no. but may did shoot 66-66-66 in the last three rounds of the pga. that is pretty strong.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:49 am to TigerPhan27
quote:
Phil Mickelson wouldn't be classified as a "superstar?
in tiger's era he will be, but if phil was in jack's era, he wouldn't be a top player. there's a reason most people refer to phil as the lovable loser
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:49 am to The Darrow Kid
quote:
They made the course longer which benefits who....?
i don't know? ask zach johnson and trevor immelman.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:52 am to pnut53088
quote:
in tiger's era he will be, but if phil was in jack's era, he wouldn't be a top player
most ridiculous statement in this thread. phil was probably the greatest collegiate player of all time. he has more talent than just about everyone in nicklaus's era.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 11:52 am to pnut53088
quote:
els, singh
that's my point. there is no competition. Singh hasn't won a major since 2004, and Els hasn't since 2002!
Posted on 7/24/09 at 12:07 pm to pnut53088
quote:
that's my point. there is no competition
professional golf has grown exponentially over the last 30 years. a lot more tours, more foreigners. the number of us open entries has quadrupled since jack won his first. you have people shooting 59 in qualifying school. it is crazy how competitive it is now.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 12:13 pm to lsugolf1105
Dude I think your talking to a bunch of old-timers, I've heard the same type of arguments when football applies, but "toughness" can beat freak athletes any day, in their opinion.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 12:21 pm to pnut53088
quote:
Singh hasn't won a major since 2004, and Els hasn't since 2002!
but in 2002 and 2004 they were competiton
Posted on 7/24/09 at 12:45 pm to TigerPhan27
Gary Player - 9 Major Championships
Ton Watson - 8 Major Championships
Arnold Palmer - 7 Major Championships
Lee Trevino - 6 Major Championships
Nick Faldo - 6 Major Championships
Seve Ballesteros - 5 Major Championships
Raymond Floyd - 4 Major Championships
These are Nicklaus competition from his era and their number of majors won. Tiger Woods has NO modern competition that makes the all-time list.
So Nicklaus played against 7 players across his career that won a combined 45 majors. Tiger clearly hasn't played against the elite level of competition that Nicklaus faced. IOW, guys that know how to win a major and do it again and again.
Ton Watson - 8 Major Championships
Arnold Palmer - 7 Major Championships
Lee Trevino - 6 Major Championships
Nick Faldo - 6 Major Championships
Seve Ballesteros - 5 Major Championships
Raymond Floyd - 4 Major Championships
These are Nicklaus competition from his era and their number of majors won. Tiger Woods has NO modern competition that makes the all-time list.
So Nicklaus played against 7 players across his career that won a combined 45 majors. Tiger clearly hasn't played against the elite level of competition that Nicklaus faced. IOW, guys that know how to win a major and do it again and again.
Posted on 7/24/09 at 12:55 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
Gary Player - 9 Major Championships
Ton Watson - 8 Major Championships
Arnold Palmer - 7 Major Championships
Lee Trevino - 6 Major Championships
Nick Faldo - 6 Major Championships
Seve Ballesteros - 5 Major Championships
Raymond Floyd - 4 Major Championships
These are Nicklaus competition from his era and their number of majors won. Tiger Woods has NO modern competition that makes the all-time list.
So Nicklaus played against 7 players across his career that won a combined 45 majors. Tiger clearly hasn't played against the elite level of competition that Nicklaus faced. IOW, guys that know how to win a major and do it again and again.
This to me just makes the point. During Tigers run so far there is so much talent 1-200 that it makes it almost impossible to win more than one or two majors. ANYONE CAN STEP UP. This just makes Tigers 14 that much more impressive.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News