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

[Deleted Member 1156]

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.

The courses and equipment are totally irrelevant as they are the same for all competitors in each era. Careers are defined by Major records, Jack won 18 and finished runner up in a further 19(?) which far exceeds what Woods has achieved to date.

 

[Dibby]

The courses and equipment are totally irrelevant as they are the same for all competitors in each era. Careers are defined by Major records, Jack won 18 and finished runner up in a further 19(?) which far exceeds what Woods has achieved to date.

Please reread my post. Particularly the lines below:

"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 what makes a modern golfer good may fail in the old era."

Jack and Tiger didn't play against the same fields, so you can't compare them to each other. You can say they were best against who they played at the time in the given conditions, but no more.

A lower ranked player from Jacks era might have really suited the modern game and excelled, and vice versa from the modern game.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Please reread my post. Particularly the lines below:

"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 what makes a modern golfer good may fail in the old era."

Jack and Tiger didn't play against the same fields, so you can't compare them to each other. You can say they were best against who they played at the time in the given conditions, but no more.

A lower ranked player from Jacks era might have really suited the modern game and excelled, and vice versa from the modern game.

Yes I saw that but all you can judge a player by is his record. Comparing different types of players across different eras is all guesswork. Jack beat the best players in his era 18 times, Woods had beaten the best in his era 14 times. That is pretty clear cut to me.

 

[Dibby]

Yes I saw that but all you can judge a player by is his record. Comparing different types of players across different eras is all guesswork. Jack beat the best players in his era 18 times, Woods had beaten the best in his era 14 times. That is pretty clear cut to me.

Clear cut that they were each the best in their era?

How they compare to each other is purely guesswork.

Which was exactly my point.

 

[IanM]

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

Its just another modern way of stiffling rational debate

Tiger in his pomp was blooming amazing. Astonishing even. Without the injuries, would he have steamed past Jack's 18 by now? Very probably!!

Is he the G.O.A.T? Not if you take Major wins as the yardstick! (History probably has to)

Am I sick that TV coverage is so "Tiger-centric?" Yes indeed, does that mean I hate Tiger? Of course not.

 

[bobmac]

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.

.

But does he still want to win because he wants to beat Jacks record?

If not, why does he not play every week?

 

[Kellfire]

But does he still want to win because he wants to beat Jacks record?

If not, why does he not play every week?

Because his body can’t take every week.

 

[bobmac]

Because his body can’t take every week.

Agreed.
But if he did what every doctor, coach and physio told him and eased off on the power, he could play every week and maybe win more majors, but he wont.

 

[IanM]

He's playing this "taped" up! He loves to win, so he keeps going.

 

[Tashyboy]

Intersting question but the way Tiger barged his way through the kids yesterday, me finks he will never be adored the same way Jack is.

 

[shortgame]

Intersting question but the way Tiger barged his way through the kids yesterday, me finks he will never be adored the same way Jack is.

Tiger didn't cover himself in glory again did he (his mask slipped)

Was Jack 'adored' when he was playing?
I don't think so. Respected hugely but not adored. The adoration was all Mr Palmer's as he played with such panache 👑

 

[Carpfather1]

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.

amen

 

[User20205]

This whole thread is academic because Seve was the greatest of all time 🐐 🐐!!!
Would tiger still be playing if he’d broken jacks major record....probably, he’s got nothing else. He’s driven to one end IMO. That being winning at Golf
There’s no doubt that tiger is statistically the greatest player ever, major record excluded.
I heard recently that when he was world no 1, the points difference between him & no2 was greater than 2-1000!!!

I just wish he’d enjoy it more!!

 

[grumpyjock]

Golf is Golf, every player wants to be the best, I would miss going out on the course. And I will play as long as I can.
Tiger is and always willbe a massive draw to the game of golf as Jack Gary and Arnnie were, there are so many golfers and each one has a different style. Its watching them play that brings the crowds in.
I watch just to see the swing and the effort put in to each shot.

 

[grumpyjock]

If Seve had not had the problems he could have been the best, and beaten all the records. But life is life and no if's can change it.
At the present Jack, Arnnie and Gary remain the idols of many.

 

[Andy]

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

Tadger

 

[IanM]

If Seve had not had the problems he could have been the best, and beaten all the records. But life is life and no if's can change it.
At the present Jack, Arnnie and Gary remain the idols of many.

I was also thinking about Seve and his back trouble... clearly made a massive difference to his career stats.

And if you mention Jack, Arnie and Gary to the Puma orange clothed nippers on the putting green, they will look at you blankly! Or even Woosie , Faldo, and Lyle from a UK perspective!

Sport is of it's time...and at the end, the numbers matter

 

[shortgame]

And if you mention Jack, Arnie and Gary to the Puma orange clothed nippers on the putting green, they will look at you blankly!

Or Woods! How old would you have to be to remember when he was in his pomp and winning majors?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

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.

Nonsense, since when was 14 greater than 18... plus in my opinion Nicklaus played against much tougher opposition. Thomson, Player, Charles, Di Vicenzo, Palmer, Casper, Jacklin, Watson, Trevino, Marsh, Norman, Faldo, Lyle, Ballesteros, Woosnam for starters.


Check out lists of 'greatest' golfers and you will not find many in the Tiger era.

I thought this years Open field was probably the weakest since the early 1970's.

 

[Kellfire]

Nonsense, since when was 14 greater than 18... plus in my opinion Nicklaus played against much tougher opposition. Thomson, Player, Charles, Di Vicenzo, Palmer, Casper, Jacklin, Watson, Trevino, Marsh, Norman, Faldo, Lyle, Ballesteros, Woosnam for starters.


Check out lists of 'greatest' golfers and you will not find many in the Tiger era.

I thought this years Open field was probably the weakest since the early 1970's.

The great players stood out in that era, which is why they appear so good.

Now, golfers have greater access to the best coaching, equipment, travelling is easy, so they're all at a MUCH higher standard and the depth of the field is incredibly deep.

Tiger dominated during a much stronger era of golf.