+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 88
-
02-14-2006 12:41 PM #31
I think it's impossible to compare golfers from different eras. Nicklaus had an incredible record, particularly with regard to performance in majors. It will be very tough for Tiger to equal Jack's record no matter how long he plays.
I think another factor for me is that for me, the competition was tougher for Jack, at least amongst elite players. Jack had the Big 3, himself, Gary Player and Arnold Palmer, then Tom Watson and many more.
Who has been Tiger's competition since he appeared on tour? A modern great... Phil?, Ernie?, Retief?, Vijay...? Puhleeze, none of those will be regarded alongside Player, Palmer and Watson.
What Tiger really needs to establish his greatness is a true challenger like Jack had... a great golfer for the ages. Until then he'll just be the best of a pretty mediocre lot IMHO.The opinions expressed in this post are mine and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of others on OG.
-
02-14-2006 02:23 PM #32AndruGuestOriginally Posted by Reid Masson
1) The talent pool is deeper now. ( More international players )
2) Most people have access to good instruction and training.
3) Technology and the business of golf instruction has allowed a sharing of knowledge not seen in the past.
You can't assume because Tiger wins so much that the field just sucks, that makes no sense. Because we know the field is stronger. Tiger is just that good.
I know Jack and old guys like to tout how great they were but really. Ernie VJ goose and Phil are not chumps. They're championship players in tough against a guy who went through a period where he was invinsible. 1999-2002. 7 majors out of a possible 16. That's just bad timing.
-
02-14-2006 02:40 PM #33Originally Posted by Andru
The field may be deeper overall, but the number of true champions at the top is pretty thin these days.The opinions expressed in this post are mine and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of others on OG.
-
02-14-2006 03:04 PM #34"Richard"GuestOriginally Posted by mberube
-
02-14-2006 03:11 PM #35Originally Posted by thothoStrive for perfection, but never expect it!
-
02-14-2006 03:23 PM #36
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Location
- Newfoundland
- Posts
- 91
I think it's all irrelevant. You can never end a debate in the "who was better" arguments. Ali vs Tyson, Gretzky vs. Orr, Hogan vs. Tiger whatever.
The truth of it all was that they were the best when they were in the sport. Every sport has changed, and now with more and more money in sports there are bound to be more people trying to be the best at it. I think that just proves that modern athletes are probably physically superior to the athletes of old.
Argue it either way you want, but there is no such thing as a "golf IQ", in fact i havn't heard much more ludirous a thing in a while. Any pro golfer could easily be a pitcher, quarterback, hockey player or tennis playing if he or she wanted to do so and started training at a young enough age.
-
02-14-2006 03:31 PM #37"Richard"GuestOriginally Posted by mberube
"And Hogan and Snead were most definitely around. Hogan played 19 tournaments in 1945, while Snead played 27 (Nelson played 30 or 31 events, depending on who's doing the record-keeping). So Snead played essentially the full season, while Hogan played about two-thirds of it. Hogan and Snead both won multiple times in 1945. In fact, Hogan set a 72-hole scoring record in one tournament, only to have Nelson break it two weeks later."
-
02-14-2006 03:56 PM #38Originally Posted by thotho
As for Snead, he has no stats between 1942 and 1945 that I ca find. He did serve in WWII but I can’t find the dates.
As for the fields being week, I saw a show on TV stating that his record, nothing short of amazing, was done in weaker fields. Hogan was angry that he was getting all the attention and nobody was noticing that the competition was weaker.Strive for perfection, but never expect it!
-
02-14-2006 04:04 PM #39"Richard"Guest
I don't know much about the history of golf, only what ever I read but thats what I read
I do have a question.. why doesn't anyone ever talk about boby jones as the greatest golfer ever? Is it because he stayed amateur and played mostly against nobodies and actually had very few wins against the top players of his time? (compared to jack, tiger.. who won all the time against the best while they were playing)
HAD bobby jones turned pro would be talking abou him as the greatest golfer ever? Was he that much better than everyone else and not turning pro is what leaves him out of these discussions? Educate me
-
02-14-2006 04:13 PM #40
Excellent question. Bobby Jones was a lawyer and he played golf strictly for the pleasure of the game. Had he played professionally, he'd have played more, but he definately should be included in the list of greats.
Old Tom Morris?
-
02-14-2006 04:26 PM #41Originally Posted by thotho
The game of golf has many legends: Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, just to name a few. One of the greatest golf legends was a man by the name of Bobby Jones. He is considered a true sports champion. He played in 52 tournaments in his career. He won 23 out of the 52 tournaments in which he played. He retired from golf when he was 28 years old. He was one half of the design team for the Augusta National Invitational Tournament, or as more commonly known, The Masters. He played in the Masters tournament until 1947, when he began to have health problems. Jones continued to attend the Masters tournament after he became paralyzed in his arms and in his legs in a wheelchair. He accomplished all this while playing with an Amateur status. He also achieved two college degrees; one in Engineering and another in English Literature. He also passed the Georgia Bar examination with only two years of studying at law school. He was the author of many articles for newspaper and magazine, as well as authoring four books and working in motion pictures.The opinions expressed in this post are mine and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of others on OG.
-
02-14-2006 04:46 PM #42"Richard"Guest
That bobby jones movie is really good. I really enjoyed it. If its accurate in all the details then what an amazing story. Now when they say he entered 50+ tourys does that include all the amateur events he played? Because if in fact he was the greatest player at that time, for him to go back and play in the amateur would be like tiger going back and playing it now owuldn't it? I doubt anyone could beat him. How many of his wins were where he got an invite to the tournment (like wie got last year) and how many of those did he win? That would be a more accurate stat.
Who is this TOM guy you speak of the guy from old course in scotland? name sounds very familiar
-
02-14-2006 05:00 PM #43
The first pro golfers rose from the ranks of early greenskeepers. Alan Robertson is often referred to as the first real professional. The first Open Championship, "The British Open", was played in 1861, 2 years after his death. Tom Morris won the event. Morris was Robertson's apprentice. The Open was really the only tournament that was played in those days and the idea of actually playing golf for a living was still a long way away. Tom Morris was appointed greenskeeper at St Andrews in 1865.
-
02-14-2006 06:05 PM #44
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- XXXXXXXXXXXX
- Posts
- 4,215
Originally Posted by thotho
Here are some that are available on the internet, if you use SEARCH and History of Golf you would find these.
http://golf.about.com/od/historyofgolf/
http://www.golfeurope.com/almanac/history/history1.htm
http://www.golfing-scotland.com/history.asp
http://www.thegolfchannel.com/30300/2402
http://www.worldgolf.com/wglibrary/history/
http://www.worldbook.com/features/golf/html/history.htm
http://athleticscholarships.net/history-of-golf.htmMy opinions are my own, I do not follow others.
-
02-14-2006 07:36 PM #45
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,163
Originally Posted by Andru
Hogan was a good putter in his prime, but Tiger is a great putter, and that, along with his wedge game, makes him an excellent player. Hogan's putting prowess diminished greatly as he had difficulty seeing the ball because of some damage done to his eyes during his accident, a little known fact that was revealed in "Afternoons With Mr. Hogan," by Jody Vasquez.
In one of Hogan's books he described his maximum distance with the driver at 300 yards. This was in the 1950's. Imagine him hitting it straight with ProV1X distance. Untouchable. I am old enough to have seen Nicklaus, Miller, Trevino, Weiskop in their prime, and they were amazing. Moe Norman was better than all of these and if Hogan was close to Norman, Gary Player is right. With equal putting, Hogan has Tiger for lunch.
-
02-14-2006 07:51 PM #46AndruGuestOriginally Posted by BC MIST
We have yet to see Tiger's prime. That will be frightening and the bandwagon will be wide open for all to join us.
-
02-14-2006 08:21 PM #47AndruGuestOriginally Posted by Reid Masson
I did a little research on your "True Champions"
Arnold Palmer. 7 majors. 4 won with no Jack Nicklaus (Joined the tour in 62). and 2 in the great 1962 when he won 2 and Nicklaus was a rookie. so 6 majors before Nicklaus was the Head Sheriff in town. 1 major in the true Nicklaus era. That's not much competition for Jack.
Gary Player. 9 majors 2 before Nicklaus came aliong so 7 majors in the Nickalus era. He was a champion no argument from me.
Tom Watson. 8 majors. 4 of them after 1980 when Nicklaus's career was on a down turn. Nicklaus did pull out a surprise at the 86 masters. but his domination had faded after 1980 when he won his last in his prime. So Watson put it to Jack 4 times. Wow!
So of the 24 majors won by the 3 guys you mentioned. 12 were either before Jack was on tour or in his prime.
That's 12 majors. From 1962-1980 18 years.
VJ(3) Phil(2) and Ernie(2) have 7 during the Tiger era from 1997-2005 9 years.
-
02-14-2006 10:47 PM #48Originally Posted by Andru
I think we already have seen tiger's prime, to be honest. This is just opinion, but I don't see him attaining dominance again. As for the equipment, there's still no way you can compare the equipment Tiger was using to the stuff that Hogan was using. Even if Tiger wasn't playing the best stuff available at the time, it was definitely far better than anything Hogan was playing. And, at least from what I read, it didn't sound like he meant a 300 yard carry, but a 300 yard drive...I could be wrong here.
-
02-15-2006 08:27 AM #49
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,163
Originally Posted by Andru
Originally Posted by Andru
Tiger may not have reached his prime yet because HH has flattened his swing and he is close to be on proper plane in his downswing. Until he gets there, and until he consistently plays subconscious golf, his level of play will stay where it is, as long as he continues his superior putting. If he starts missing some crucial putts and he develops a mode of fear, which can only be controlled and not eliminated, he will bring his competitors to his level.
-
02-15-2006 08:47 AM #50Originally Posted by Andru
I'll only address Arnold... so who was on top of golf when Tiger came along? Greg Norman? Man, that is killer competition.
Jack was so good that he basically ended Arnie's reign. Tiger was so good he ended Greg Norman's reign (if there ever really was one). Anyway we could debate this forever but I don't have a time machine available to show you how much better golf was back then when men were men, irons were blades, woods were wooden, balls were dead, fairways weren't manicured and rough really was rough...The opinions expressed in this post are mine and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of others on OG.
-
02-15-2006 10:37 AM #51
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- ottawa
- Posts
- 637
Yawn. Does it really really really matter whos #1 ?
-
02-15-2006 10:40 AM #52AndruGuestOriginally Posted by Reid Masson
Finally!!!! one you guys finally admits it. This is simply generational protection. It doesn't matter how good Tiger gets. You will NEVER see him as the best ever.
So what is it Reid? Did Jack put Arnold out of buisiness or was he just a cream puff competitor that benefitted from good timing? I realize he's like a god in golf. I've said it before Tiger brought me to golf and Arnold made me stay. I have the utmost respect for the King. But which one is it?
We all go through phases as we age. We have a phase in our youth when we're very impressionable. Like Tiger is doing to the youth of today. Jack did in the past. Jack did it for you and now that you're probably more mature( allegedly ) You see things that happen now, for what they are.
No doubt when Tiger ages and new young star comes along. I'll be tempted to say the same things. Hopefully, I have the vision to overlook my bias and analyze the situation for what it is. I'd hate to think I'd end up so closed minded.
-
02-15-2006 10:43 AM #53
Don't worry Andru, I think your bias is clear to everyone already...
The opinions expressed in this post are mine and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of others on OG.
-
02-15-2006 10:51 AM #54
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Forever stuck between single digit and trunk slammer!
- Posts
- 16,809
Originally Posted by Andru
I'm still relatively new to this sport (been playing for five/six years) and I do watch the old highlight shows on the TGC. I'm with Golfpeasant on this one, what does it really matter. We can all agree that all the above mentioned golfers rank up there as some of the best of all time. And I don't think the "phases of age" has anything to do with people's opinion, its the passing of time. As much as we and the media try to compare athletes from different decades you just really can't do it. Each sport has evolved through the years along with the equipment, training methods etc. So one person's best ever is not another's. Agree to disagree and leave it at that."A life lived in fear of the new and the untried is not a life lived to its fullest." M.Pare 10/09/08
-
02-15-2006 10:52 AM #55
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- XXXXXXXXXXXX
- Posts
- 4,215
The Greatest?
As far as I am concerned until Woods or anyone else for that matter wins EIGHTEEN MAJORS then Jack Nicklaus was and still is the greatest golfer that played Mens Golf.
Technology has made huge advancements in the way the game is played. Woods bombs it off the tee, and offline quite often. If he was using the balls that Nicklaus and others used back in the 60's and 70's, (more side spin) some of his drives would be in another county
Courses are better conditioned. The PGA sets the standards for bunkers now, every course bacically has to have the same texture of sand, depth of sand etc. The Tour sends someone out far in advance to make sure this happens. Fairways are now cut shorter than greens were back in Arnie and Jack's days.
Players are better conditioned than they were back in Jack's days. I doubt there was a Fitness Trailer following every PGA Event back then. Most players today visit Mind Doctors.
There is no comparison, there never will be. It is like comparing a Nascar race from the 60's to one held this year.
As for Woods winning 18 Majors. It is possible, but until he does JACK IS THE GREATEST. You can not argue was past success.My opinions are my own, I do not follow others.
-
02-15-2006 11:15 AM #56AndruGuestOriginally Posted by BC MIST
Hogan was playing a persimmon driver and a wound ball. The first ball that I ever played was a Titleist in 1960 and of one thing I am sure. The difference in distance that a PROV1 flies compared to Tiger's wound Titleist is very, very small, relative to the difference in distance between my 1960 Titleist and Tiger's late 90's Titleist. Move Hogan's Titleist back another 12 years and to carry a ball even 265 yards in those days would at least be comparable to Tiger's 300 yard carry of today.
Tiger may not have reached his prime yet because HH has flattened his swing and he is close to be on proper plane in his downswing. Until he gets there, and until he consistently plays subconscious golf, his level of play will stay where it is, as long as he continues his superior putting. If he starts missing some crucial putts and he develops a mode of fear, which can only be controlled and not eliminated, he will bring his competitors to his level.
I tried to find some tour statistics from 1946-50 to support Power Golfs claim about Driving distance and yours about his fariways hit and greens in reg etc. and could not find any.
That doesn't mean I believe it's false, it just means I can't find it anywhere else right now. But I did find one impressive stat.
Between 1946 to 1953, Hogan won 9 of the 16 majors he played.
That's pretty frightening.
-
02-15-2006 11:17 AM #57AndruGuestOriginally Posted by Geoff Johnston
You see you guys don't READ. I said the best it Jack becasue of his 18 majors!!
-
02-15-2006 11:18 AM #58AndruGuestOriginally Posted by Reid Masson
-
02-15-2006 11:23 AM #59AndruGuestOriginally Posted by Reid Masson
-
02-15-2006 11:24 AM #60Originally Posted by Andru
Anyway, I don't really care who is No. 1 of all time. To me, all that's clear at this point is that Jack and Tiger are probably 1 and 2 of all time. They are unquestionably both the best of their eras. I'd put Hogan, Snead and Jones up there too for their eras, but that's just me. And I'm an admitted Ben Hogan freak .The opinions expressed in this post are mine and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of others on OG.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Golf Clothing at Sports Experts
By LeftyT in forum OttawaGolf DealsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-04-2011, 06:19 PM -
Golf Clothing at Sports Experts
By LeftyT in forum Local StuffReplies: 0Last Post: 09-04-2011, 06:19 PM -
CBS Sports Fantasy Golf Pool
By NoBack in forum Tour TalkReplies: 0Last Post: 02-04-2008, 02:45 PM -
Cleveland Golf Sold to SRI Sports
By Chambokl in forum General Golf TalkReplies: 0Last Post: 10-31-2007, 10:50 PM -
Golf is a stupid game
By spackler in forum General Golf TalkReplies: 44Last Post: 05-28-2006, 12:02 PM