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

[Deleted Member 1156]

“And co” = no one else was that great.

Oh I see.

What about Trevino, Boros, Casper, Watson, Floyd, Jacklin, Miller, Irwin, Ballesteros, Langer, Lyle, Graham, Nelson, Stockton and several others who all won 2 or more Majors during the time that Nicklaus won his 18.

And don't forget that in the 40 Majors played in the 70's Jack finished in the top 10 in 35 of them.

I think you might be wearing stripe tinted spectacles.

 

[Kellfire]

You’re making my point for me over and over and over again. Multiple major winners and a concentrated pool of them because it was easier.

He finished top ten in so many because the field lacked depth.

You don’t even realise that you’re proving me right!

 

[shortgame]

Come on, much of Tiger's competition was not up to much and repwatedly collapsed at the first sign of pressure. There might have been a larger field of decent players but no genuine greats. Same way there's a much larger talent pool now than in Tiger's pomp.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

You’re making my point for me over and over and over again. Multiple major winners and a concentrated pool of them because it was easier.

He finished top ten in so many because the field lacked depth.

You don’t even realise that you’re proving me right!

If the fields lacked depth then how come there were so many multiple major winners during that time? Surely there should only have been 2 or 3 regular winners not all those that I listed plus others too?

I'm afraid you are now just showing your lack of knowledge about golf. I suggest you read up on golf pre Tiger.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Can you please list the players that make it a higher quality and deeper field from 99 to 08 when Woods was winning his majors please

Nope. I don’t care enough to make an argument that won’t be given serious time anyway. I don’t believe for one second that you really believe the average touring pro was of a higher standard in Jack’s pomp than Tiger’s so I really can’t be bothered giving it anymore air time on this occasion. But don’t worry, we’ll get other chances when Tiger does well again. Which I think he will.

Love when people say “Player, Palmer and co” or words to that ilk. My point proven.

“And co” = no one else was that great.

So you love the "and co" because you think that people can't name other great players, yet when directly asked to name the other great players from the Woods era you decline to do so?

You're either on the wind up or there's a lack of understanding, and given the comments on equipment I suspect it's the latter.

 

[bobmac]

You're either on the wind up or there's a lack of understanding, and given the comments on equipment I suspect it's the latter.

I think it's the former

 

[Papas1982]

If the fields lacked depth then how come there were so many multiple major winners during that time? Surely there should only have been 2 or 3 regular winners not all those that I listed plus others too?

I'm afraid you are now just showing your lack of knowledge about golf. I suggest you read up on golf pre Tiger.

I think Jack wins the debate as the best ever, but i do think that its closer than some would like. If we judge simply on majors (which i do) he wins. But if we accept that's the main criteria for making a player a great then there would be some interesting debates as to who's better lower down the list. Monty v Willet for example.

I also think the timescales mask it, Jack had 24 years from first to last major twice as long, so of course more players will be in that period of time. If Woods wins one more before retirement then the calibre of players he's faced will include McIlroy, Spieth, DJ etc and that certainly closes the gap somewhat...

Re the tech they use, they still had to play against par and during his pomp, nobody had stats as good as Woods had.

One thing is for certain, Woods could win 20 and the Jack fans still wouldn't warm to him.

 

[bobmac]

One thing is for certain, Woods could win 20 and the Jack fans still wouldn't warm to him.

Appreciating what he has done in golf and warming to him are worlds apart

 

[Hobbit]

Should it just be measured in Major wins/places? Should all other tournament wins be ignored? Does Tiger’s relatively shorter competitive period count against him or, perversely, count for him?

If it includes all tournament wins, Tiger is way ahead. For Tiger to achieve it over a relatively shorter period it would suggest he’s better.

But in Major wins Nicklaus takes it.

Woods had Mickleson, Els and to a lesser extent VJ. Nicklaus had treble that number of very good golfers to compete against.

For me, Nicklaus obviously has the better record but Woods(and I hate saying it) was the better golfer.

But the only definitive answer would be to see them both at their very best, competing against each other, and that’s never going to happen.

Would Woods still be playing if he’d already beaten Jack’s record. I think he would.

 

[Papas1982]

Appreciating what he has done in golf and warming to him are worlds apart

But far too often that go hand in hand.

Lots of people when this discussion is had make remarks to his character. That's their right, but imo should have no bearing when rating a players ability.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Nicklaus was not exactly well liked for the first 10-15 years of his career.
Palmer was the equivalent of Tiger from the 1960's to mid 1970's.
When Nicklaus lost weight and changed his hair style the golfing public warmed to him.


When [if] Tiger hits 19 major wins I will gladly recognise him as the greatest ever golfer

 

[Grant85]

There have only been 36 majors won by guys over 40.

Many of them Old Tom Morris and Jack.

Only 14 majors won by guys 43 and older (which is the age Tiger will be starting next season). 1 of these was Jack at 46. Only 1 of these was this century (Phil at Muirfield).

Also given the physical issues that Tiger has had, he is probably going to have below average capability relative to the field - comapred with most guys who won majors at age 43 and older.

I know Tiger is a physical speciman, but the knee surgeries, the back surgeries and much of the military style training he has done have taken its toll. Also, while Tiger has always broken the barriers, this would be one that needs smashed if he was going to get another 4 or 5 majors. (especially that he is probably only going to have chances in a Masters or Open Championships).

 

[Orikoru]

I would love to give out a questionnaire with two questions - Q1. Who was better, Tiger or Jack? Q2. How old are you? Just to see the correlation.


I think everyone is guilty of it to be honest. The younger half will lean towards Tiger because they watched him dominate and didn't see much footage of Jack actually playing. The older crowd will favour Jack because of nostalgia and how 'they don't make em like they used to' and so on.


For the record, I think these two posts summed it up best, amongst the last several pages of biased mud-slinging:

I think Jack wins the debate as the best ever, but i do think that its closer than some would like. If we judge simply on majors (which i do) he wins. But if we accept that's the main criteria for making a player a great then there would be some interesting debates as to who's better lower down the list. Monty v Willet for example.

I also think the timescales mask it, Jack had 24 years from first to last major twice as long, so of course more players will be in that period of time. If Woods wins one more before retirement then the calibre of players he's faced will include McIlroy, Spieth, DJ etc and that certainly closes the gap somewhat...

Re the tech they use, they still had to play against par and during his pomp, nobody had stats as good as Woods had.

One thing is for certain, Woods could win 20 and the Jack fans still wouldn't warm to him.

Should it just be measured in Major wins/places? Should all other tournament wins be ignored? Does Tiger’s relatively shorter competitive period count against him or, perversely, count for him?

If it includes all tournament wins, Tiger is way ahead. For Tiger to achieve it over a relatively shorter period it would suggest he’s better.

But in Major wins Nicklaus takes it.

Woods had Mickleson, Els and to a lesser extent VJ. Nicklaus had treble that number of very good golfers to compete against.

For me, Nicklaus obviously has the better record but Woods(and I hate saying it) was the better golfer.

But the only definitive answer would be to see them both at their very best, competing against each other, and that’s never going to happen.

Would Woods still be playing if he’d already beaten Jack’s record. I think he would.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I think it's the former

Can we agree it’s both? 👍

 

[bobmac]

Can we agree it’s both? 

Is that allowed?
I thought we had to argue about everything on here?

 

[Piece]

Can we agree it’s both? 👍

And that is the right answer!

 

[Blue in Munich]

Is that allowed?
I thought we had to argue about everything on here?

Isn’t that the Brexit thread?

 

[Blue in Munich]

I would love to give out a questionnaire with two questions - Q1. Who was better, Tiger or Jack? Q2. How old are you? Just to see the correlation.


I think everyone is guilty of it to be honest. The younger half will lean towards Tiger because they watched him dominate and didn't see much footage of Jack actually playing. The older crowd will favour Jack because of nostalgia and how 'they don't make em like they used to' and so on.


For the record, I think these two posts summed it up best, amongst the last several pages of biased mud-slinging:

You missed out how long have you been playing? Because those of use of a certain age will consider the the game was much harder with the butter knives that Nicklaus, Watson, Trevino and co used to play with, and the condition of the courses back then. The equipment and course conditioning has changed completely, as has the way the game is played. Those of us who have played through that change may consider that there is not a greater depth of talent for Woods to beat, but that the equipment in the game today makes it easier for a greater number of players to compete. I've now been playing over 40 years; I know that my physical capacities have decreased over time, yet with modern equipment I can now hit it considerably further than I used to with persimmon headed woods. I seem to remember balata balls deviated far more in flight than the modern ball. And as a consequence of that we might well consider that Jack's greater number of Majors is a much better feat than Tiger's.

And before anyone tries to pick me up on it, yes I know Tiger and a few of the current youngsters use blades, but trust me they bear little similarity to those that Jack et al used.