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.
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.
ChopperIf 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.
No it was not. Tiger saved golfGolf 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.
No it was not. Tiger saved golf
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.
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.
Read Jack's crazy book My Golden Lesson. Control swings were taught for a long time by the top teaching pros. Because most golfers in that generation were not athletes. I'll get off your lawn now.o_O Where the hell did you get that total BS about Jack's generation?
In this thread
1. Tiger fans who are blinded by his play and think golf started in 1990
2. Crazy people (jtung)
3. Long time golfers who suggest the first two don't know everything.
Read Jack's crazy book My Golden Lesson. Control swings were taught for a long time by the top teaching pros. Because most golfers in that generation were not athletes. I'll get off your lawn now.
Would not agree that anyone with a HCP of 10 or higher is a hack. Guess it also depends on the meaning we want to give Hack.
To me a Hack is someone who plays the game relatively poorly compared to other golfers.
I'm thinking that's someone who can't or rarely breaks 100 on a course from the white tees.
Would not agree that anyone with a HCP of 10 or higher is a hack. Guess it also depends on the meaning we want to give Hack.
To me a Hack is someone who plays the game relatively poorly compared to other golfers.
I'm thinking that's someone who can't or rarely breaks 100 on a course from the white tees.
Duval, Zinger, Davis Love, Adam Scott, Sergio Garcia...are nah's? You're a tough grader. All of those guys on that list had a lot of game in their primes, won a lot of tournaments and made a lot of money All would have won in any era.See my edits in quote. But like I said earlier fun to argue...
You do know there are qualifications for the World Golf Hall of Fame? Right? Half the people you listed don't make it. A minimum 15 wins and a minimum 2 major wins including the TPC. Duval, Azinger, Garcia... dont even qualify. Than once qualified you need 75% of the votes to get in. Davis Love is barely qualified with 1 major and TPC.Duval, Zinger, Davis Love, Adam Scott, Sergio Garcia...are nah's? You're a tough grader. All of those guys on that list had a lot of game in their primes, won a lot of tournaments and made a lot of money All would have won in any era.
Thought this was interesting, Jack never won the Vardon award for lowest scoring average across a season. Here's a list of people who won it more than once:
Also interesting in this debate of who was better, imo, is the stat for most consecutive tournament wins in a row because it shows how dominating a players game was at specific points in their career...
- 9 wins
- Tiger Woods: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2013
- 5 wins
- Billy Casper: 1960, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1968
- Lee Trevino: 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1980
- 4 wins
- Arnold Palmer: 1961, 1962, 1964, 1967
- Sam Snead: 1938, 1949, 1950, 1955
- 3 wins
- Ben Hogan: 1940, 1941, 1948
- Greg Norman: 1989, 1990, 1994
- Tom Watson: 1977, 1978, 1979
- 2 wins
- Fred Couples: 1991, 1992
- Bruce Crampton: 1973, 1975
- Tom Kite: 1981, 1982
- Lloyd Mangrum: 1951, 1953
- Nick Price: 1993, 1997
- Rory McIlroy: 2012, 2014
Byron Nelson won 11 in a row, one of the great records in sports.
Tiger won seven in a row in 2006-2007, six in a row in 1999-2000, five in a row in 2007-2008. Ben Hogan was the only other golfer to win five in a row, which he did in 1948.
Tiger had three in a row in 2000 and in 2001. Jack only won three in a row once in his career, 1975.
Jack had the best career but hard to argue he reached a higher peak with his game than the domination that was TW.
Hall of Fame or not, they are all supremely talented players who, imo, would have more in the "thinner" fields of Jack's era. And when you have one guy winning 7-10 tournaments in a year, that sort of cuts down on your chances by 20-30%...You do know there are qualifications for the World Golf Hall of Fame? Right? Half the people you listed don't make it. A minimum 15 wins and a minimum 2 major wins including the TPC. Duval, Azinger, Garcia... dont even qualify. Than once qualified you need 75% of the votes to get in. Davis Love is barely qualified with 1 major and TPC.
And your Vardon Trophy arguement supports Jack in that he played among much better competitors than Tiger.
If you dont understand the dramtic changes in equipment and conditions I can't help your narrow viewpoint. You keep bringing it up and ignore the facts. I was an Assitant Pro in my early 20s. I am now 55 and hit the ball much farther than back in my youth. I used to hit an 7 iron from 150. I now use a 9 iron or wedge. I play just a few times a year as opposed to everyday. Your scoring average between generations means absolutely nothing.Hall of Fame or not, they are all supremely talented players who, imo, would have more in the "thinner" fields of Jack's era. And when you have one guy winning 7-10 tournaments in a year, that sort of cuts down on your chances by 20-30%...
Jack had Arnold, Gary Player and Billy Casper in the 60's and Trevino, Miller and Watson in the 70's. Tiger never had that second chapter so we missed him against Rory, DJ, Spieth and Day. He had Mickelson, Els and Singh who collectively won 13 majors to the Palmer,Player, Casper total of 18. But hard to imagine 5'5" 140 pound Gary Player winning nine majors during Tiger's era...
If that era was so great, it isn't reflected at all in the scoring averages. Between the time Snead and Hogan averaged under 70 in 1948-1950, only Palmer and Billy Casper (twice) averaged under 70 for a season until Trevino did it in 1980. Tiger is the only player to average under 68 for a season (twice), unthinkably good golf. Were the courses set up harder for that chapter? Never heard anyone suggest they were....And frankly, the argument for Jack, without ever averaging under 70 for a season, as being the greatest to ever play, is a tough one to make.
The equipment changed very title between the 50's and the arrival of the Burner in the mid 80's. Hogan and Snead were shooting lower scores with the same equipment on the same courses as the whole of the Nicklaus era. And Tiger was averaging lower scores 15 years ago than the players today who would seem to be benefitting from further tech advances.If you dont understand the dramtic changes in equipment and conditions I can't help your narrow viewpoint. You keep bringing it up and ignore the facts. I was an Assitant Pro in my early 20s. I am now 55 and hit the ball much farther than back in my youth. I used to hit an 7 iron from 150. I now use a 9 iron or wedge. I play just a few times a year as opposed to everyday. Your scoring average between generations means absolutely nothing.
So what. The players surronding Nicklaus's last major to win the Vardon Trophy were Dan Pohl, Scott Hoch and Calvin Peete. Its was not a stat that was equals to success. And Nicklaus didnt qualify many years as he didnt meet the minimum rounds requirement of 80 back than. It been lowered to 60 rounds in 1987 making it easier for guys like Tiger to win it. Before 87 most of the guys that won were great golfers that played nearly every week but far from the best.The equipment changed very title between the 50's and the arrival of the Burner in the mid 80's. Hogan and Snead were shooting lower scores with the same equipment on the same courses as the whole of the Nicklaus era. And Tiger was averaging lower scores 15 years ago than the players today who would seem to be benefitting from further tech advances.
Yes it is insignificant because it not an apples to orange comparison.Fair enough, wasn't aware of the minimum round requirement back in the day. Turns out that Nicklaus twice averaged under 70 for a season, never getting below 69.81.
I would hardly call a season scoring average and insignificant stat, especially in the context of a discussion of who was the best to ever play the game. It;s one of the most prestigious awards in golf...who shot the lowest, on average, all year. It's a way to measure dominance and in Jack's case, it just isn't there.
For my money, Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer to ever be arrested on DUI charges in Jupiter....
BREAKING: Tiger Woods arrested on DUI charges in Jupiter
Good thing it was not in Uranus. . . . :grimace:For my money, Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer to ever be arrested on DUI charges in Jupiter.
Agreed, he was the best over an entire career. But Tiger's peak 9-10 years was better than Jack's.Jack Nicklaus is the best golfer of all time.
How RU doin'?
Don't understand why Tiger could not call a cab, uber or get a driver (not a golf one) if he was drinking.Jack Nicklaus is the best golfer of all time.
How RU doin'?
People are not known to make the best decisions when they have been drinking.Don't understand why Tiger could not call a cab, uber or get a driver (not a golf one) if he was drinking.
I would think at this point there is a pretty strong shot that he could possibly be addicted to pain killersHe looks horrible... he looks more than just drunk. What a sad turn for someone who had everything that anyone could ask for. I guess when he lost golf and his family (the latter was his own fault), he didn't know how to pick himself back up. I wonder where his real friends are... those that can tell him to get sober or at least don't drive after partying.
Jack didn't have to worry about DUI during his era.Jack Nicklaus is the best golfer of all time.
How RU doin'?
Jack didn't have to worry about DUI during his era.
If he lived in Connecticut, he technically could've gotten a DUI and arrested in Mianus.Good thing it was not in Uranus. . . . :grimace: