If Jack Nicklaus had only won..........

[bobmac]

Let the haters hate,he probably won’t win another but nice to see him back and the buzz that follows him

Just because someone doesn't idolise Tiger, doesn't automatically make them a hater.

 

[Dibby]

GOAT discussion in any field is always subjective. There is no real way to compare athletes across different eras.

How would Nicklaus have handled modern equipment, courses and fields?

Look at other sports:

Motorsports - completely different cars between eras.
Football - different ball performance, better boots and player lifestyles.
Tennis - Wooden v modern racquets and different court speeds.
Athletics - even 'pure' events like the 100m have had huge advances with blocks, modern rubber tracks and modern shoes.

The only thing that you can really say is that modern athletes tend to be better due to advances in sports science and this will continue into the future. This tends to have less impact on the absolute best athletes in any era, but over the years the average athlete is now much better.

 

[MegaSteve]

The modern concept of 'hater' is something I can never get my head around...

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

GOAT discussion in any field is always subjective. There is no real way to compare athletes across different eras.

How would Nicklaus have handled modern equipment, courses and fields?

Look at other sports:

Motorsports - completely different cars between eras.
Football - different ball performance, better boots and player lifestyles.
Tennis - Wooden v modern racquets and different court speeds.
Athletics - even 'pure' events like the 100m have had huge advances with blocks, modern rubber tracks and modern shoes.

The only thing that you can really say is that modern athletes tend to be better due to advances in sports science and this will continue into the future. This tends to have less impact on the absolute best athletes in any era, but over the years the average athlete is now much better.

I think in sports like golf and tennis there is a clear method to determine the best and that is the number of majors won. That is how careers are defined. In sports like athletics you are correct, as athletes become fitter and stronger, world records continue to fall so it is harder to define the GOAT.

 

[londonlewis]

I think in sports like golf and tennis there is a clear method to determine the best and that is the number of majors won. That is how careers are defined. In sports like athletics you are correct, as athletes become fitter and stronger, world records continue to fall so it is harder to define the GOAT.

So Michael Campbell is a better golfer than Lee Westwood, Luke Donald, Ian Poulter?

And Padraig Harrington is 3 times better than Sergio, Day and Henrik?

It's clear as mud, in my opinion!

I see some merit in this idea, but don't think it's watertight.

 

[Kellfire]

Tiger is the best player that golf has ever seen - that's beyond doubt. His dominance in an era with such depth in quality across the field has long since cemented that, and in real terms his 14 majors trump Jack's 18 by some distance.

Tiger is insanely driven to win and golf is his chosen specialised subject - he's still playing because he still wants to win.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Tiger is the best player that golf has ever seen - that's beyond doubt. His dominance in an era with such depth in quality across the field has long since cemented that, and in real terms his 14 majors trump Jack's 18 by some distance.

Tiger is insanely driven to win and golf is his chosen specialised subject - he's still playing because he still wants to win.

As you didn't witness Nicklaus' career you are in no position to make such a definitive judgement.

But then that's never bothered you before

 

[Kellfire]

As you didn't witness Nicklaus' career you are in no position to make such a definitive judgement.

But then that's never bothered you before

It's not like records are kept, or that the increase in training, technology and the opening of golf to more and more people across the world shows the increase in depth and quality.

If you weren't there, you can't comment. I mean, that's the logic used by Holocaust deniers, so it definitely holds up.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

It's not like records are kept, or that the increase in training, technology and the opening of golf to more and more people across the world shows the increase in depth and quality.

If you weren't there, you can't comment. I mean, that's the logic used by Holocaust deniers, so it definitely holds up.

The records which you appear to have so much faith in cannot enable you to measure the relative competitiveness of the fields.

You are constantly dismissive of the fields in Jack's day and yet one could equally question the quality of the opposition when Tiger was at his stellar best

All that any of us can ever say with any level of certainty is that a player is the best of his own time.

 

[Kellfire]

The records which you appear to have so much faith in cannot enable you to measure the relative competitiveness of the fields.

You are constantly dismissive of the fields in Jack's day and yet one could equally question the quality of the opposition when Tiger was at his stellar best

All that any of us can ever say with any level of certainty is that a player is the best of his own time.

I disagree and would put it back to you that your own inability to compare is something I don't share.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I disagree and would put it back to you that your own inability to compare is something I don't share.

That must be due to me lacking your all embracing knowledge of the game.

Or it may be that I lack your arrogance.

 

[Dibby]

I think in sports like golf and tennis there is a clear method to determine the best and that is the number of majors won. That is how careers are defined. In sports like athletics you are correct, as athletes become fitter and stronger, world records continue to fall so it is harder to define the GOAT.

I disagree. Golf has changed a lot in terms of courses, equipment and even access to the game - back in Jacks era you would likely to be wealthier to even have a chance to play.
An event being a major doesn't distinguish the field you played against, how the course was set up, or what equipment you had available.
Even how the game is played is different, could an old-school shot shaper compete against a 'bomb and gouger'? The old player might struggle in the modern era, but the what makes a modern golfer good may fail in the old era. The comparison is just impossible.

Same with tennis, the equipment changes how the game is played, a serve and volley player would have different success in different ers compared to a power baseline player.

In theory, 100m should be the simplest comparison, so if this is not possible, more complex comparisons are even less possible.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Tiger is the best player that golf has ever seen - that's beyond doubt. His dominance in an era with such depth in quality across the field has long since cemented that, and in real terms his 14 majors trump Jack's 18 by some distance.

Tiger is insanely driven to win and golf is his chosen specialised subject - he's still playing because he still wants to win.

Of course there is doubt - you can post with such definitive

I would also suggest that the depth when Nicklaus was playing was far stronger and also Nicklaus was still winning in the 80’s -

Your “real” terms comment is again hard to justify

 

[Kellfire]

That must be due to me lacking your all embracing knowledge of the game.

Or it may be that I lack your arrogance.

Again, a common fall back. If anyone claims to understand something that someone else does not, it's arrogance. I'll just roll my eyes and move on.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Again, a common fall back. If anyone claims to understand something that someone else does not, it's arrogance. I'll just roll my eyes and move on.

And continue to live up to your reputation.

You have as much chance of forming an objective opinion of Nicklaus' performance as I have of Ben Hogan or Harry Vardon.

The difference is that I acknowledge my limits. Unfortunately that's something you are incapable of doing.

 

[Kellfire]

And continue to live up to your reputation.

You have as much chance of forming an objective opinion of Nicklaus' performance as I have of Ben Hogan or Harry Vardon.

The difference is that I acknowledge my limits. Unfortunately that's something you are incapable of doing.

There's a slim chance you're turning a relative small "debate" into something rather hyperbolic.

My "reputation" eh? The internet is such a serious place.

 

[bobmac]

There's a slim chance you're turning a relative small "debate" into something rather hyperbolic.

My "reputation" eh? The internet is such a serious place.

I'd rather you just answered the original question

 

[Kellfire]

I'd rather you just answered the original question

I did in my first response - "he's still playing because he still wants to win" ergo not because he's trying to beat Jack's records.

I've since been made aware that we aren't allow to say things that we can't definitively prove, so it sort of makes the entire question moot.

 

[Dan2501]

Very difficult to compare the two of them. I'd say Nicklaus is the best winner of all-time, Woods the best player. Tiger did so many incredible things in his prime that I don't think will ever be matched - his run from 1999 to 2007 include

• Scoring averages of - 68.4 (1999), 67.8 (2000), 68.8 (2001), 68.6 (2002), 68.4 (2003), 69.0 (2004), 68.7 (2005), 68.1 (2006) and 67.8 (2007) - for reference - he holds the 9 lowest season scoring averages of all-time.
• Held all 4 majors at the same time in 2000
• 683 weeks as World Number 1
• 10 majors won before the age of 30
• 52 rounds of par or better in a row
• 75.2% GIR in 2000
• 141 cuts made in a row
• 4 consecutive years leading the money list - 10 total
• Combined -52 under par in the majors in 2000 - 35 shots better than anyone else

I don't think we'll ever see anyone as dominant in golf as Tiger was for that 8 year period.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I'd rather you just answered the original question

Apologies for the thread being taken off track.

My opinion is that Tiger would continue to compete rather like Jack until such time as he felt that he was no longer competitive.

Couldn't see him ever becoming a "ceremonial" golfer in the way that Arnie did.