re: Who is the greatest golfer ever: Tiger or Jack?

quote:

---

I forgot that golf is 100% physical and zero % mental.........

---

There you go with your strawman arguments again

But just to pacify you, I don't care how mentally strong you are. If you're too hurt to play, you're not going to win golf tournaments. Tiger hasn't been healthy for more than a year at a time in 10 years. Not to mention it's a lot harder to rehab in your mid to late 30s than your 20s

1998 Masters Leaderboard

Jack was 58....

Jack. 18 + 19 + no steroids >

quote:

---

Is it not also possible that the talent pool back then was not nearly as deep, so the most talented golfers on the tour could clean up and win the lion's share of majors?

Kind of like with women's college basketball with Tennessee and UConn winning constantly over the past 30 years due to the more shallow talent in women's basketball compared to the men where the competition is much more even due to a much deeper talent pool.

---

This is exactly how I view it

quote:

---

strawman (i.e. I never made this argument)

---

It's almsot exclusively how he debates.

quote:

---

When you have a better 7 year peak, it means you're better at golf.

---

Look at Jack from 1962 to 1980.... Then we will talk...........

quote:

---

Exacty.

And it's the absolute truth. Or at least the idea of it is.

---

Here's the full quote from Jack's book where he elaborates on why current golf fields are much deeper than it was during his era.

quote:

---

The factor that often gets overlooked by those who can't see how three or four wins can make a golfer a star is the depth of talent in the top echelons of the game today. Scores may not be dropping all that fast but the number of golfers around the world who can consistently shoot lights out has increased at least tenfold in the thirty-plus years I have played professionally. Spawned by golf's constant worldwide growth and inspired to excel at the game by ever increasing financial incentives, their number seems to grow, almost as it seems by the day. As that happens, the difficulty of winning even a single tournament or championship, let alone several, increases dramatically.

After my first few years as a pro, there were maybe 30 guys who could beat me if I wasn’t playing my best but only about ten when I was on top of my game. If I were out there with the same hunger and skills, those numbers would be tripled at least. And the players defeating me wouldn't need a lot of lucky breaks, either.

In 1930, there were perhaps ten golfers, pro or amateur, who might defeat Bob Jones when everything was right for them. In fact during his eight peak years from 1923-1930, he lost to only two men in match play and failed to win only two of the stroke-play tournaments he entered. I figured standards have risen to the point where about two-thirds of the contestants in the full-field majors have a chance of winning which means Bob's competition would be multiplied about tenfold. Thus to me, George Trevor, a well-known golf writer of Jones' time was correct in calling Bob's greatest achievement, "The Impregnable Quadrilateral". I believe it will remain unmatched for all of eternity.

---

So there you have it Jack fans. The great man himself debunks the "Tiger played against a weak field" argument by stating that the fields Tiger went up against during the beginning of his career were at least 3x more difficult than what he had to endure during his prime.

Tiger did what he did with titanium, perfect balance; tuned clubs.

Jack used true wood clubs and a crappy putter.

For better or worse I can’t say, but environmental landscaping has come a long way. Mower machinery has improved.

Has to be Jack. He did more with less in all aspects. Playing some of the same courses

Nicklaus also scaled back his schedule dramatically to focus on his golf course design business. At some point he was a part time golfer and still won majors. He’s also a Buckeye and I was there at the game when he dotted the i.

Seriously, tough one to gauge here. Why not both?