Guess who's back????

[Lazeek]

Listen I have been around golf my entire life and I mean my entire life and I was a Jack lover back then and still am a Jack lover now, but I finally woke up about a year ago and realized that Tiger is the greatest plater of all time.  You are seriously confused if you think that the competition was better in Jack and Arnie's time.  At that time there was 6-8 guys who could win a tournament week in and week out.  Now just about anybody that tee's it up in the tournament can win the tournament.  I am not sure of the % but I would bet that the top 6-8 guys won 85-90% of the tournaments in Jack's time and I would say that the top 6-8 in today's time only win about 25-30% of the tournaments.  It was a hard pill for me to swallow but I got it down and there is no comparison between the competition from Jack's time and Tiger's time.

[baddog]

Lazeek, please don't act like you are the only one who has watched golf or your opinion is the only one that can possibly be right. I respect everyone's opinion, but I also have my own.

Tiger Woods is the #1 player in the world today, there is no denying that. Had Woods played in Jack's heyday, he would have had to play against the likes of Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Floyd, Johnny Miller, Greg Norman, ...need I continue? This is a handful, but there are more who fit the category of being able to win also....Stadler, Weiskopf, Kite, Crenshaw....etc. Then come the majors and the like of Ballesteros, Faldo, Langer...etc.

Tiger would have played and won against these guys, no doubt, but Tiger has had plenty of tournaments where he had to make his famous charge on the final round. Not only would these guys also be making their charge (Watson and Faldo come to mind quickly), which would put more pressure on Tiger, but also the simple fact that these guys did not choke to allow such a charge to beat them, except for maybe Norman. Let Ray Floyd get out to a 3 or 4 shot lead in the final round, it was curtains, because not only did he play bogey free golf to sustain a lead, he continued to make birdies. He was known as the toughest to catch. I liked him almost as much as Jack. Maybe this doesn't make sense to you, but it is what I know and what I suspect would be the case.

I sure wish Jack could have teed off with a ''Big Bertha''.  ;D

[Lazeek]

Well let me see.................my uncle has played against every player that you just listed!!!!!!!!  Some for more years than others, but he said without hesitation that Tiger is the greatest of all time and that had Tiger been around in Jack's time that the results would be no different...........Tiger winning the majority of time.  He also said that had Jack been around in Tiger's time with better equipment that Jack would be a better ball striker but no be able to keep Tiger from winning all that he has.

I am the best golfer in this message board!!!!!!!!!  Well except for maybe Spinks!!!!! ;D ;D ;D

[baddog]

To hear you tell it, you are the best at everything on this message board!!!!!! Well, I don't have an uncle who played pro golf, so I guess my opinion doesn't count. Like I said, Tiger would win and would win some majors, but you are as good as your competition.

I really thought Singh and Els (Mr. perfect swing) would have done better than they have. When Rocco Mediate is the best thing going, and he can be beaten with a bum knee, well that tells me something.

I promise to watch more tournaments and try to learn some of the young guys. Maybe someone will surface.

BTW, I like Tiger Woods.

[Lazeek]

Actually I am not the best at everything on this board........but I appreciate the compliment!!!! ;) ;)

I had a hard time accepting Tiger as the best in the world and of all time but reality just finally set in.  Look at what he has done with a bad knee and other things that have not gone the way that one would want (IE death of his father).  He won the US OPEN by 12 shots, Masters by 12 shots and is only I think 4 majors behind Jack and he is only 34!!!!!!!  He will end up with 20+ majors by the time that he is 40!!!!!!

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one...........and you know that I am not one for giving in!!! :D

[baddog]

Agree to disagree. I will say again that Tiger would have won some tournaments and some majors against these guys, but I don't think he would have as many as he has now, due to the lack talented players each week with majors of their own under their belts.

Here is something I found today and it pretty much explains my position....

One other point about Jack's 18 majors: he had to beat all manner of men who were hellbent on winning. Some of them, really, were a little crazy. (These golfers won at least two majors in the Nicklaus years): Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, Billy Casper, Fuzzy Zoeller, Hubert Green, Raymond Floyd, Johnny Miller, Hale Irwin, Andy North, Tom Watson, Dave Stockton, Lee Trevino, David Graham, Julius Boros, Seve Ballesteros, Tony Jacklin. As a group, they beat Nicklaus more often than he beat them, and he still got to 18.

Here's the fivesome of golfers who have won multiple majors since Tiger won his first major in April 1997: Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Phil Mickelson, Retief Goosen and Mark O'Meara. (Jose Maria Olazabal, Lee Janzen and Payne Stewart, all multiple major winners, each won one after April 1997.) The Els fivesome would have won in any era, including Jack's, but even combined they don't match Woods.

[Lazeek]

Jack won the Masters in 86..........so I would not count Ballesteros in that arguement.

Nobody will ever know and that is why it is good that everyone has their own opinion!!!!

Mine is Tiger and your's is Jack!!!!!!!  I was 100% Jack until about 2 years ago.  I am willing to bet that Tiger wins two Majors this year and will do it in record setting fashion.

[baddog]

One other note about the equipment and I will let this one go. The 7200 to 7300 yard courses Jack played on with his style of clubs and golfballs, would equate to the courses having to be about 8000 yards with today's bigger drivers, composite shafts, and hotter golfballs with more dimples.

I'm done.

[24 over par]

One other note about the equipment and I will let this one go. The 7200 to 7300 yard courses Jack played on with his style of clubs and golfballs, would equate to the courses having to be about 8000 yards with today's bigger drivers, composite shafts, and hotter golfballs with more dimples.

I'm done.

i aggree on the equipment

[Lazeek]

Back 20-25 years ago there were only a handful of tournaments that were over 7000 yards...................now every tournamnet is over 7000 and several are over 7400!!!!!!!

[Guest nostradamus]

Anyone ever given any thought to the fact that Tiger makes it look as if there is no competition.  Quit comparing Tiger and Jack.....compare the others and the depths of the fields.  Crap the fields back then didn't even allow as many golfers as they do today.

If the competition was so steep back then and there were so many good players why wasn't there a Nationwide or Hooter's Tour back then.........if there were that many good players there would have been the money to support such tours.

[baddog]

Anyone ever given any thought to the fact that Tiger makes it look as if there is no competition.  Quit comparing Tiger and Jack.....compare the others and the depths of the fields.  Crap the fields back then didn't even allow as many golfers as they do today.

If the competition was so steep back then and there were so many good players why wasn't there a Nationwide or Hooter's Tour back then.........if there were that many good players there would have been the money to support such tours.

Of course I have, and I came to the conclusion that the quality of players is not what it was back then. It's like watching the NE Patriots play the Detroit Lions every week. Are you going to tell me that NE just makes it look easy, or that Detroit sucks?

If you don't agree with what I say, then don't, but please don't tell me who I can compare.

[Guest nostradamus]

So you are saying that Phil Mickelson is not better than the second best golfer in Jack's day? 

And you're saying simply based on number of wins and majors?  Eye ball test?  What?

Because the answer is.........none of today's players appear as good because Tiger is the standard.......there was no Tiger back then (no...not even Jack) so all players were much more competitive.