In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1714
The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes
Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes
If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here
Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Mickelson, Goosen, Harrington, O'meara, Els, Singh, etc.
When it was Watson, Nicklaus, and Palmer, those were the only guys that could beat eachother.
I think Tiger's competition was much better and it's clear.
Tiger permananetly lost his golf mojo. Had a gift and ruined it 'cause he wanted to whore around more. Sometimes these athletes get too big for their own britches. He doesn't deserve the record & I hope Jack keeps it forever!
You're saying Watson and Palmer and that's it?
In the 70s and 80s he also had hall of famers Tom Kite, Greg Norman, Seve Ballesteros, Ben Crenshaw.
In the 60s and 70s he went against hall of gamers Billy Casper, Ray Floyd, Hale Irwin, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Johnny Miller.
And those listed are just the hall of famers. I haven't even talked about folks like Fuzzy Zoeller, Craig Stadler, Curtis Strange, Billy Casper, et al that were not hall of famers but rose up as various parts of Jack's career.
Now, I am not saying these were all his greatest rivals (Seve rarely played in the US beyond the majors for instance) he did have some terrific competition.
National President of the Sky is NOT Falling Club
Right on. Golfers today make too much money for 17th place. There isn't the need to compete for the win every week.
There were more mentally tough players then, because they needed the money. Just ask Lee Trevino.
Harrington (two majors), O'Meara (one major), Els and Singh compare to a few guys you left off like Trevino (more major titles than Goosen, Harrington and O'Meara combined), Ray Floyd, Seve Ballesteros, Miller, Faldo, Kite, Player, Crenshaw, Mize, Price, Norm, Strange, Stadler, Zoeller and Olazabal, all who played against Nicklaus in majors in a twenty year span he was competing in until he won the Master's at age 46. Jack was even a Sunday leader in one Master's in his late 50's that Els won.
That is a small sampling you left off, very selective pool you left off to keep building your weak case.
I think you left off a lot of great golfers who all won multple majors or more that played against Nicklaus to build your feeble case, that is what's clear.
Gary Player is another, he has more major titles than Goosen, Harrington and O'Meara, just as Trevino did, those two alone blow most of your list out of the water. Trevino and Player could beat anyone in that era, as could Floyd, Faldo and Ballesteros.
Do not let facts and a complete list of names you left off affect your case though.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by ohiost83 2 years ago
You just nailed it.
Between all his personal issues with his family and the doctor from Canada that got busted for giving professional athletes some performing inhancing drugs. (Aka Federer) which just happens to be Tigers best friend. Ever since that has occurred, Tigers body has not been the same and seems to be having problems staying healthy. I think he was juiced during most of his career and now its catching up to him and Federer. JMO
guyano -- could be a good point. David Duvall could be in that boat as well.
How many years did that list you put together span in comparison to the one I made, that was 5 years, btw?
This post was edited by TJMMBuckeyes 2 years ago
The CHASE is on...
Answering your question with a question...how many of Tiger's contemporaries are hall of fame worthy? Singh is in there. Mickelson will be.
Tiger might have a deeper field, but Jack faced a higher caliber of top-end competition.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Heater 2 years ago
Dont get me wrong, golf isnt golf without Tiger Woods. I just think that was to much of a coincidence when Federer was connected to the Canadian Docter. I think Tiger will get better the more he plays and I like everybody else, probably dont watch much golf without Tiger. Theres just no way he dominates the game like he did because he doesnt have that little extra to help. Theres only one Jack as far as Im concerned. I hope Tiger doesnt break any records but I will watch and see for sure.
Els without a doubt.
What I'm saying is, those fields were so thin so anybody that was any good at all won tournaments. Fields were at least 60 people smaller, as someone pointed out earlier, and the game wasn't nearly as global.
What 83 said was at least a span of 30 years.
Nicklaus won a Masters at age 46, and led one Sunday in his mid to late 50's before El's won the tourney at Augusta. When you lead the Master's early on a Sunday, you are in contention and still competing against younger players for a Master's title, is it that hard to figure out? You that biased?
That is why you count that whole period, even if you take when Nicklaus first started playing to winning a Master's at age 46, that is 25 years, you need a calculator to do the math?
Your good at distorting names and facts, but winning at age 46 and starting in your early 20's is pretty simple math, maybe your from the school of new math floating around.
This post was edited by ohiost83 2 years ago
I'm not even sure where we were in the debate. What are you referring to?
I wouldn't be talking about being biased if i were you.
The competition that Tiger has faced IMO is much better and abundant than what Jack faced. Jack had maybe 2-3 players each weekend to be concerned with whereas Tiger faces 10-15. However, Tiger is also equipped with better technology (clubs,balls, etc.) than Jack had and to me this makes a big difference. Can you imagine Jack in his prime hitting aluminum shafts for instance. One thing that will never be question is that Jack brought more class to the game than Tiger has or ever will. Will Tiger catch Jack? Of course that is a question yet to be answered but I have my doubts. It seems that just as he seems to be getting his game back to snuff he has some sort of injury. And of course due to his own actions he has lost the public appeal and support that he once had. He is facing more players today who believe they can beat him and has totally lost his intimidation. Jack is my all time favorite golfer and of course I hope Tiger does not catch him. Tiger's image hurts the game of golf so of course I hope he does not eclipse Jack. Only time will tell but I will not be pulling for him but on the quesiton of caliber and numbers of competition that Tiger faced/faces I have to give him the nod.
"However, Tiger is also equipped with better technology (clubs,balls, etc.) than Jack had and to me this makes a big difference. Can you imagine Jack in his prime hitting aluminum shafts for instance."
Courses lengthening by 700-1200 yards has countered that, IMHO.
The fields are way better and deeper today. However, the facts would state that the top guys competed much, much harder during Jack's era. Durinfpg Tigger's first run, no one was competing
I don't think tiger will beat Jack due to injuries, he's basically been hurt since the 08 US Open victory.
IMO, Jack's competition was tougher in reference to the top 5-6 players, but the overall fields are deeper now with more parity, ala college football with scholarship limits.
Tiger owns the record for lowest scores in Masters, Open championship and PGA and his 2000 US open victory by 15 SHOTS was the best golf I've ever seen.
Wish I had seen Jack and Ben Hogan in their primes.
"I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It's yours."
I don't agree on the lengthening of the courses argument.
Drivers: On a good drive I literally hit the ball 50-60 yards farther than when I was a kid when I was much stronger, more flexible and my game was MUCH better. I don't think that the lengtheing of the course makes up for the HUGE disparity. Hell, I'm thinking Jacks only major with a metal wood was 1986, but don't know that for sure. He was the longest player of his generation and what kind of advantage would he have had with the same distance increase I have.
Balls: I am 36 and started playing for real in 1986. The balls were total crap, even the balata balls. Imagine what they must have been like in the 60-70s. the better the player, the more differnce the ball makes, so what if Jack would have had the advantage of superior ball technology.
So you don't think there's a difference between a 350 yard par 4 and a 460 yard par 4?
But the lengthening didn't really take place until after Tiger arrived. For instance, Augusta was 6,985 in 2001 and was lengthened to 7,290 in 2005. Over 18 holes that 305 yards is nothing. Prior to 2001, Augusta was the same length for over 50 years.
"But the lengthening didn't really take place until after Tiger arrived. For instance, Augusta was 6,985 in 2001 and was lengthened to 7,290 in 2005. Over 18 holes that 305 yards is nothing. Prior to 2001, Augusta was the same length for over 50 years."
Augusta was one of the last courses to lengthen on the PGA tour if I remember correctly.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports