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

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

In Tigers era there is prob just the two players that will be historically remembered - Mickleson and Els

Nicklaus played across a number of Era’s and the depth was superb and with equipment that was far harder to master than what Woods has used over his era’s.

 

[Orikoru]

Weird how both of you are citing equipment as strengthening opposite arguments. Surely it's a moot point, in any era all of the tour pros would have had access to the same equipment?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

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.

All eras were stronger.
As I said check the lists of Greatest Ever Golfers to confirm.

Just Michelson and maybe Els in Tigers time. They were not really what I would call 'Great Golfers' probably comparable to Norman and Jacklin.

 

[Orikoru]

All eras were stronger.
As I said check the lists of Greatest Ever Golfers to confirm.

Just Michelson and maybe Els in Tigers time. They were not really what I would call 'Great Golfers' probably comparable to Norman and Jacklin.

I don't really think it's possible to assert things like that. We don't know if say, Mickelson had played the game 20 years earlier, maybe he would have 18 majors now? It's impossible to confirm or deny. Just as it's impossible to compare Tiger and Nicklaus really. That's why people always point to number of majors, even though, as we've stated, a large number of factors were different.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

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.

No he didn't, see post #59.

 

[shortgame]

No he didn't, see post #59.

✔✔✔

 

[Kellfire]

Weird how both of you are citing equipment as strengthening opposite arguments. Surely it's a moot point, in any era all of the tour pros would have had access to the same equipment?

The availability and consistency of equipment is much more vast now - these days no one has a significant advantage from equipment. It's a more level playing field so individual skill is more important. This is one small factor in why the fields are better and deeper now.

All eras were stronger.
As I said check the lists of Greatest Ever Golfers to confirm.

Just Michelson and maybe Els in Tigers time. They were not really what I would call 'Great Golfers' probably comparable to Norman and Jacklin.

Nonsense - the only reason you can't pick out so many "great" players in your eyes is exactly because of what I'm saying. The fields are so much stronger now - there's a very tight spread on the ability of these players. It's why you see can see players dropping out of the top 125 and into lesser tours; it only takes a minor drop off in performance, and the larger field will gobble you up! In past eras, there wasn't that amount of challenge!

No he didn't, see post #59.

See my last quote for why post 59 actually proves my point about the lack of field depth.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

The availability and consistency of equipment is much more vast now - these days no one has a significant advantage from equipment. It's a more level playing field so individual skill is more important. This is one small factor in why the fields are better and deeper now.



Nonsense - the only reason you can't pick out so many "great" players in your eyes is exactly because of what I'm saying. The fields are so much stronger now - there's a very tight spread on the ability of these players. It's why you see can see players dropping out of the top 125 and into lesser tours; it only takes a minor drop off in performance, and the larger field will gobble you up! In past eras, there wasn't that amount of challenge!



See my last quote for why post 59 actually proves my point about the lack of field depth.

Does that mean in your eyes Darren Clarke was a better golfer than Ben Hogan.

 

[Kellfire]

Does that mean in your eyes Darren Clarke was a better golfer than Ben Hogan.

There's no logical reason you've assumed that.

Honestly, it's clear this argument can't be resolved because some people just will not get over their personal hatred of Woods and cling to nostalgia.

Let's just accept that Woods is the best in the modern era and that there's no way that modern golf would be less skilful than previous eras and that by proxy Tiger is the best of all time.

 

[bobmac]

There's no logical reason you've assumed that.

Honestly, it's clear this argument can't be resolved because some people just will not get over their personal hatred of Woods and cling to nostalgia.

Let's just accept that Woods is the best in the modern era and that there's no way that modern golf would be less skilful than previous eras and that by proxy Tiger is the best of all time.

Honestly, it's clear this argument can't be resolved because some people just will not get over their personal hatred of nostalgia and cling to Woods.


Let's just accept that Nicklaus is the best of all eras because it's my thread and I said so :thup:

 

[Kellfire]

Happy medium?

In his pomp, Happy Gilmore had the best long game in the world.

When injuries took their toll, he developed the best short game and still stayed the best.

So... Happy Gilmore is the GOAT.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

There's no logical reason you've assumed that.

Honestly, it's clear this argument can't be resolved because some people just will not get over their personal hatred of Woods and cling to nostalgia.

Let's just accept that Woods is the best in the modern era and that there's no way that modern golf would be less skilful than previous eras and that by proxy Tiger is the best of all time.

Modern golf is considerably less skillful than the days of hickory.

How often do you see modern pros lose a ball despite being 50 yards+ off line. Some of the shots I witnessed at Gullane and Carnoustie were simply dreadful.
An amateur/member would have no chance whatsoever of finding their ball in some of the places Woods/Speith etc found themselves.

My Gandfather could chip stymies, put check/side spin on a putt, play from cart tracks/rough roads and stop a ball on greens that had never been watered.
There is even quite a difference in my life time from small headed persimmon drivers and wound balls.
If I could play with todays modern equipment in the 1960's I would have been at least 4 shots a round better.

 

[Kellfire]

Modern golf is considerably less skillful than the days of hickory.

How often do you see modern pros lose a ball despite being 50 yards+ off line. Some of the shots I witnessed at Gullane and Carnoustie were simply dreadful.
An amateur/member would have no chance whatsoever of finding their ball in some of the places Woods/Speith etc found themselves.

My Gandfather could chip stymies, put check/side spin on a putt, play from cart tracks/rough roads and stop a ball on greens that had never been watered.
There is even quite a difference in my life time from small headed persimmon drivers and wound balls.
If I could play with todays modern equipment in the 1960's I would have been at least 4 shots a round better.

Thanks for agreeing with my point that the modern equipment assists everyone, raising the standard and increasing the depth of the field and thus making it much more difficult for someone to dominate and thus requiring someone to be much better in comparison to the field to achieve such a feat.

TL;DR Woods is the GOAT. Except for Happy.

 

[Orikoru]

Modern golf is considerably less skillful than the days of hickory.

How often do you see modern pros lose a ball despite being 50 yards+ off line. Some of the shots I witnessed at Gullane and Carnoustie were simply dreadful.
An amateur/member would have no chance whatsoever of finding their ball in some of the places Woods/Speith etc found themselves.

My Gandfather could chip stymies, put check/side spin on a putt, play from cart tracks/rough roads and stop a ball on greens that had never been watered.
There is even quite a difference in my life time from small headed persimmon drivers and wound balls.
If I could play with todays modern equipment in the 1960's I would have been at least 4 shots a round better.

The equipment angle still isn't relevant to the comparison. It's not as if Nicklaus was up against competitors using clubs from the future.

If you estimate that the difference in equipment is 4 shots then that means Tiger wins. The average winning scores of Nicklaus' majors was 5.39 under par, whereas Tiger's average is 12.86 under par. More than four shots difference.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

What has equipment got to do with it? Totally irrelevant as Jack had access to the same equipment as his competitors and likewise Woods to his competitors. The only stat that matters is Jack beat his Major competitors more times than Woods has managed so far. If Woods equals or beats Jack's record then it is a different discussion.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/15/tiger-woods-jack-nicklaus-comparison/2083049/

 

[Kellfire]

What has equipment got to do with it? Totally irrelevant as Jack had access to the same equipment as his competitors and likewise Woods to his competitors. The only stat that matters is Jack beat his Major competitors more times than Woods has managed so far. If Woods equals or beats Jack's record then it is a different discussion.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/15/tiger-woods-jack-nicklaus-comparison/2083049/

Nonsense. You're completely ignoring the clear and obvious fact that the depth of fields is huge now in comparison to then. The reason the same names cropped up back then and were declared greats isn't because they were that great, it's because they had less rivals in terms of numbers.

Extrapolate that up, and it makes Tiger's achievements so much more impressive.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Nonsense. You're completely ignoring the clear and obvious fact that the depth of fields is huge now in comparison to then. The reason the same names cropped up back then and were declared greats isn't because they were that great, it's because they had less rivals in terms of numbers.

Extrapolate that up, and it makes Tiger's achievements so much more impressive.

You clearly have no understanding of golf history.

 

[Dan2501]

Surely there should be more criteria considered when deciding upon the "Greatest of All-Time" than purely major wins? Using that thought process Donald Cerrone would be the GOAT in MMA.

 

[Orikoru]

Surely there should be more criteria considered when deciding upon the "Greatest of All-Time" than purely major wins? Using that thought process Donald Cerrone would be the GOAT in MMA.

I do think it's a bit simplistic, yeah. Obviously they are supposedly the most difficult course set-ups, and everyone raises their game for them and so on, so I get it. But it does undervalue some players as well. Montgomerie, 31 European Tour wins, but no majors so he was rubbish. Bubba has 2 majors so he must be every bit as good as Langer who also won 2.

 

[Kellfire]

Surely there should be more criteria considered when deciding upon the "Greatest of All-Time" than purely major wins? Using that thought process Donald Cerrone would be the GOAT in MMA.

It is used for one reason only - it keeps Jack above Tiger. It's idiotic.