Bingo. Prime vs prime, Tiger beats everyone. 13 majors in 9 years.
OT: Tiger walks off course
- Thread starter zappaa
- Start date
He's likely got cartilage damage and arthritis in his back from all that big swinging for 30 years. Lots of that stuff can't really be fixed. Like flexibility - it goes no matter what you do. Watch a 15 year old swing a club and then watch a 30 year old. It's amazing what a young spine can do.
Last edited:
But the conditions were worse. Tour greens are perfect now. 30 - 40 years ago greens then were like fairways now. Fairways back then were almost 1st cut now. Better modern courses take some of the uncertainty out of the game - hence lower scores. It all adds up.
You guys really don't understand how dominant Jack was in his prime. Against a historically good field.
Now comparing players from different eras is all just guesswork and opinion but don't sell Jack or Hogan or some of the really old school guys short. Jack was out hitting and dominating his era just like Tiger and his era had better golfers on average than tiger's field did.
Last edited:
I'm not saying he won't win but it's far from a done deal - again, you guys underestimate Jack.
Slower greens mean better scores. They may not roll as true but the speed is a huge advantage. Players now can literally stop it on a dime on the approach shot.
I read somewhere that he is very involved with his children. Don't recall where and don't know if it's just PR. But my recollection was that it was accurate. To the degree where it interfered with his ability to devote enough time to practice enough to compete at a high level.
I don't mean slower I mean less predictable less consistency. Pretty sure the Masters in 1940 had them running fast just not as consistent - heck I don't think they could physically cut grass back then as short as they do now and improvements in the grass itself helps make that possible.
Like I said no one is getting argued out of a position they feel real strongly about. I'm just saying don't assume all the 70s golfers would be shooting 75s all year on today's tour.
You could also make the case that with less forgiving clubs the older players were better ball strikers. They didn't have 460cc drivers with giant sweet spots. They were hitting hunks of persimmon with a slice of metal and 4 wood screws in the front. And they were hitting fairways too.
You want some fun - see if Shell's Wonderful World of Golf is on Youtube. I think that name is right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell's_Wonderful_World_of_Golf
ETA - I'm watching Pine Valley in 1962 and I'll tell you PV in 1962 has nothing on Rutgers' course last year quality wise.
Last edited:
No one is underestimating anyone. Sprinters today would make Jesse Owens look slow. Is it because they have better sneakers or weights? No! They simply have better technique, sound fundamentals and are all around better physical specimens. Michael phelps in a 200 meter free style race might beat Mark Spits by a pool length.
What amazes me to no end is that Secretariats 1973 times in the K-Derby, Preakness and Belmont still stand today. His closest competitor in terms of time American Pharoah gets smoked by 7.5 lengths in the Belmont. Just amazing.
Last edited:
Apples and Oranges. Golf isn't a strength and speed sport. Could Tiger in his prime out lift Jack? Probably. Outrun him too but Golf is nothing like running and swimming.
I think I'd pick Figure Skating or Downhill Skiing as better comparisons to Golf - and I don't think I like that I said that.
Great pic.I could be wrong but that looks like a Schiltz label to me and Arnie is having a smoke. Tiger would be puking. LOL (kidding)
A LOT of very knowledgeable people saw both in their prime and it seems all have a hard time deciding definitively, who was better. Trevino said Jack would drive it just as far as Woods with modern equipment. He was the longest hitter of his day and would often completely blow out the center core of his persimmon driver.
As good as Tiger was mentally, Jack was better. He used to look forward to majors because he said all the players would be more nervous, making it easier for him to win. He wouldn't let himself feel pressure in any way that was negative, that's how much control he had, mentally and emotionally.
But Tiger was some incredible package. And when you add up the power, the short game, the putter and combine it with his absolute ability to hit incredible shots at the key moments, seemingly over and over and over again...its as good as it can possibly get.
If both played their prime careers against each other, there would have been a lot of great duals, some won by Jack and others by Tiger. Picking one, I vote for Woods. I don't think anyone has ever played the game at his peak level, including Jack.
As good as Tiger was mentally, Jack was better. He used to look forward to majors because he said all the players would be more nervous, making it easier for him to win. He wouldn't let himself feel pressure in any way that was negative, that's how much control he had, mentally and emotionally.
But Tiger was some incredible package. And when you add up the power, the short game, the putter and combine it with his absolute ability to hit incredible shots at the key moments, seemingly over and over and over again...its as good as it can possibly get.
If both played their prime careers against each other, there would have been a lot of great duals, some won by Jack and others by Tiger. Picking one, I vote for Woods. I don't think anyone has ever played the game at his peak level, including Jack.
Jack beat Trevino, Watson, Miller, Palmer, Player, Floyd, Casper, KIte, Crenshaw, Weiskopf, etc to win his majors.
Who did Tiger beat? Mediate, May, Austin, DeMarco, Goosen, Micheel, Bjorn?
The HOFers from Tigers era are who? Els and Mickelson ... LOL
Look at how many Jack faced....
Tiger was terrific but also benefited from a very weak period in golf. Norman, Langer, Faldo, Price, etc were all but finished when TW came on the scene. BTW, YE Yang beat him and he was never the same. LOL
Who did Tiger beat? Mediate, May, Austin, DeMarco, Goosen, Micheel, Bjorn?
The HOFers from Tigers era are who? Els and Mickelson ... LOL
Look at how many Jack faced....
Tiger was terrific but also benefited from a very weak period in golf. Norman, Langer, Faldo, Price, etc were all but finished when TW came on the scene. BTW, YE Yang beat him and he was never the same. LOL
He beat the best 150 players in the world, year after year. You really think the guys got worse? I don't. If anything, by 2000, compared to 1965, the game had become a lot more international and had only grown bigger in the states. The pool feeding into the 150 was a lot bigger and it was harder to win as often as the guys you mentioned from the Nicklaus era because after them, there was maltbie and a bunch of other guys hanging out in the bar all night.
How can there be any HOFers when you get beat by 10+ Shots? I still remember Sergio thanking Tiger for not being at the tournament he won. That's how dominant Tiger was. He transformed the game and Jack didn't.
So many great golfers.
You put this group into any era and they are going to win a lot of golf tournaments. Go look at the stats from Nicklaus era, five guys would win half or more of the tournaments every year. Different era, only 15 guys were capable of winning on any given week. Tiger played in a much deeper talent era and won 10 times in 2000. TEN.
Phil Mickelson
VJ Singh
Davis Love
Ernie Els
Fred Couples
Hal Sutton
Colin Montgomery
Retief Goosen
David Duval
Paul Azinger
Adam Scott
Sergio Garcia
Bubba Watson
Brad Faxon
David Toms
Matt Kuchar
If Tiger had to play Jack at his peak and played with real woods, wedges without grooves and wound golf balls Jack would win 9xs out of 10. Jack was not only the longest player of his generation but the smartest in strategy. There is no strategy by booming a ball 300 and than spinning it on the green from 180 yards
Whitebus give it a rest he's DONE. If he's at his best he will not Crack the top 100. Many many years of ego driven golf has done him in. The plain truth is was he really that good??? Nobody played with the equipment he played with. He had a distinct advantage wit the type of ball he played with. I'm telling you right now he was a juicer but no one would have ever checked him....he single handily saved golf. If Tiger was white the world and golf would not have given 2 shits about him or golf and golf would have gone down the toilet. The fact that he was mixed race made his story that much more intriguing dominating a traditionally white sport. Good for him he played a lot of years and made a shit load of money and represented the game very well but he's DONE
Golf was doing just fine before Tiger enticed and entire generation of kids to soak up tee times, hit ground balls and ignore golf rules and etiquette. It's nice that there is a little less interest now.
Maybe you should go back and read all my posts again! I know many have reading comprehension issues on here but I was one of the first who said if we dont see him in the Masters we wont see him again this year. Or ever.
You also didnt comprehend that I am not defending Tiger but against the usage of the work hack, for Tiger who isnt shooting in the 90s.
A hack is someone who cant play at all. Tiger would kick your ass and mine even with a bad back and knee today. Using the word hack to describe a professional golfer is beyond ignorant.
What? Ego-driven golf has done him in? Not the injuries? Please, Tiger may be done, due to injuries (I don't think he is, but we'll see), but he was the best player of his generation, hands down and equipment had very little to do with it. Steroids also don't help with hand-eye coordination and he was amazing with that and had enough natural strength and flexibility, when he was younger, that I doubt it would've done much other than help with recovery time.
Sorry, but with all due respect I'm calling major bs on this.
Tiger can't compete on the Tour because he spends so much time with his kids and can't practice enough ?
I now think that I have literally heard everything from the Tigerbots.
Jack's generation is about swing at 70% and play position. Tiger's generation is swing out of your shoes and take your chances on the short game. Btw, long and wrong beat short and right. Courses had to be changed to make it challenging for players.
Jack had a son BEFORE he turned pro and had 5 kids before the age of 32. Tiger had his first kid at 32.
No one was more devoted to his kids than Jack.
Alright already, I'll agree I should have made it clear I was using the term comparatively to a healthy, well practiced PGA Tour level player.
Just curious, what is the handicap cut off for you to use the term for the general golfer? Mine is 10 or higher....hack.
Anyone questioning Tiger would be wise to read and consider Phil Mickelson's take...
"There is nobody in the game that I have seen that is remotely close to the level of performance Tiger was in his prime," Mickelson said in an interview with Golf.com. "Mentally, short game, or ball striking, I don’t think anybody matches him in any of those areas. And Tiger put them all together in one to create a career that is mind-boggling in the game of golf."
If Nicklaus was better, it couldn't have been by more than a whisker.
I have no idea where you are getting 70%. Thats complete BS. Go look at Arnold Palmers swing!
The reason they had to change course are clubs, drivers and most importantly the ball. Im hitting the ball farther in my 50s than in my 20s.
If you cant break 100 but play fast you are still ok in my book. [winking]
Generally someone that cant break 100 I have no problem calling them a hack and 100% of the would agree.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
VIDEO: College Football with Sam - Nebraska vs Rutgers Preview & Prediction 2024- Latest: William J. Leggett
-
