- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:43 am to dukke v
quote:
OK................ I would LOVE to see TIGER playing with the same stuff Jack used in the 60's.... LOL.................
My favorite Tiger diss is when people say Jack and others had it more difficult because of the equipment. That's complete horseshite.
If you have two players of somewhat similar skill, and you give them shitty equipment like persimmon woods, the slightest error is magnified significantly. The gap between the haves and have not is huge, hence the recurring tournament winners of that time. It gives the illusion the top of the field was stacked.
Modern golfers have exquisite equipment. They are playing with technology that keeps everyone close. Mishits aren't as big of a deal. As a result, the margin between the top and the middle of the pack is razor thin. Challengers have churned throughout Tiger's career, but he's remained at the top for the vast majority of it. It's absolutely remarkable.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:19 am to starsandstripes
quote:
Compare the clubs and technology that went into design and manufacture of them in Jack's era to Tiger's era. For example: Nicklaus shot 17-under par 271 in 1965 for a 72-hole record lasting 32 years until Tiger Woods shot 18-under par 270 in 1997. So, 32 years of advancement in the tools of goldf and Tiger at his best was one stroke better than Nicklaus.
This guy isn't very bright.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:54 am to L.A.
It will always be debated. I hope Tiger can get competitive and win a few more majors to make the debate more interesting, but he is getting very old for a golfer.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:15 am to L.A.
It boils down to majors and 4 is a wide gap to the next guy. Then consider the number of times Jack finished 2nd in majors (perhaps even more amazing).
Arguments about "competition" are purely speculative.
Arguments about "competition" are purely speculative.
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 11:17 am
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:30 am to L.A.
Prime Tiger is better. Jack's career is better.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:32 am to slackster
quote:/thread
If you have two players of somewhat similar skill, and you give them shitty equipment like persimmon woods, the slightest error is magnified significantly. The gap between the haves and have not is huge, hence the recurring tournament winners of that time. It gives the illusion the top of the field was stacked.
Modern golfers have exquisite equipment. They are playing with technology that keeps everyone close. Mishits aren't as big of a deal. As a result, the margin between the top and the middle of the pack is razor thin. Challengers have churned throughout Tiger's career, but he's remained at the top for the vast majority of it. It's absolutely remarkable.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:54 am to TejasHorn
All the people celebrating Jack’s 19 2nd place finishes are the same ones that poopoo on Lebron getting to the finals and losing 
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:54 am to Usafgiles
Do you know what Tiger did for golf?!?!?
No, but I do know that golf courses are closing all around the US right now.
No, but I do know that golf courses are closing all around the US right now.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:03 pm to texastiger38
Not even a close comparison..... 
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:04 pm to dukke v
Why isn’t it?
Is it better to get 2nd than 17th if the goal is wins?
Is it better to get 2nd than 17th if the goal is wins?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:12 pm to RB10
quote:
This is also false. Bobby Jones was the first golfing prodigy.
...not named Young Tom Morris.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:31 pm to texastiger38
Bron is 3-5 in finals.... jack was 1st or second 37 different times in majors..... that is incredible....
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:37 pm to dukke v
Well jack got 4 chances a year to get there and Lebron has 1.
Again, why does a 2nd pace matter if winning majors is the objective?
Again, why does a 2nd pace matter if winning majors is the objective?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:40 pm to texastiger38
I have a feeling, if Tiger finishes 2nd in the PGA Championship, the same people praising Jack will be critical of Tiger for not being able to close.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:44 pm to L.A.
Just to put JN's career in perspective.
He had 12 straight years with at least 3 top 10s in the 4 majors and 17 years in his career with 3 or more top 10s in a season.
18 major wins
19 major 2nds
8 major 3rds
75 top 10s
what a career...
3 missed cuts in majors thru 1984
He had 12 straight years with at least 3 top 10s in the 4 majors and 17 years in his career with 3 or more top 10s in a season.
18 major wins
19 major 2nds
8 major 3rds
75 top 10s
what a career...
3 missed cuts in majors thru 1984
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:55 pm to tigernchicago
LINK
This article written 4 days ago
Reauxl you see the Pony is 20th FedEx while Spieth is 27th? Same Galaxy
quote:
The final verdict It's Jack and it's not that close. Tiger Woods had the greatest run of any golfer who's ever picked up a club, but Jack Nicklaus put together a career that, from start to finish, was unparalleled. Of course, Tiger Woods is still active, which leaves the G.O.A.T. up for grabs. What would it take for a changing of the guard? Even if you think Tiger will win more majors (and I do), getting five and topping Nicklaus is nearly unfathomable. At 42, Tiger would need to replicate Mickelson's entire major career to become the all-time leader. He could make a complete return to form and it still wouldn't guarantee anything. But he won't need to top Jack's 18 to pass him as the greatest; given the circumstances, if he can win two more majors and, say, eight more tournament titles, it'd be hard to say he was second-best to anyone. Not that we won't keep arguing about it for the next 25 years.
This article written 4 days ago
Reauxl you see the Pony is 20th FedEx while Spieth is 27th? Same Galaxy
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:55 pm to dukke v
quote:
OK.. That's fine.. I forgot that golf is 100% physical and zero % mental.........
Cmon Peej, I’m on your side in this argument, but this is a ridiculous argument you’re trying to make here.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 1:00 pm to tigernchicago
Who had the better career PJ - Tom Watson or Arnold Palmer?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 1:26 pm to sms151t
quote:
sms151t
the article kind of contradicts itself and its conclusion isn't really supported by the rest of the article. They conclude it's not close but give Tiger the edge in almost every category they analyzed. The conclusion doesn't even make sense. They say that Tiger would only need 2 major wins and 8 tournament wins to pass Jack as goat. How is that not close? Their field argument also doesn't make sense if Tiger only needs 2 more. If Tiger played against a weaker field, as they allege, then one would surmise he'd need more than 18 to match Jack
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 1:39 pm
Page 17 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News