Is there any real debate about Tiger's standing ? OT

[archie_struthers]

 


Matt .... Tiger is not much longer than many of his contemporaries with the driver ......Nicklaus was......Remember when he drove it over the 18th at St Andrews   ,  without the rocket ship of a ball they play today   

In that statistics were not near as detailed as today it's harder to quantify just how far Nicklaus hit it , also he to this day probably had the most patience of any golfer that ever played at the highest level, and often backed off to three wood or  1-iron  . He wasn't near the risk taker that  Tiger is , and might explain a little bit about his lack of breakaway performances ....he really did keep it on cruise control a lot.

All this being said , I'm not going to state that Jack was better, however your query as to if there is any real debate as to Tiger's standing gets an affirmative ....there is !

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

Send me the kool-aid canister when you get done with it.

Nothing like taking one particular instance and trying to make a point of it. Shall we share Seve stories to when the incomparable Spainard was to say a bit petulant himself at times.

Seve was no less tempermental at times -- and the flip side was his magic -- Lee had no less and frankly was more consistent with it.

Lee was magical under all types of conditions -- you learn that when growing up with not a pot to piss in and in dealing with the West Texas winds he encountered. Great training grounds for what he did in defending his BO title in '72 against the top quality games of Jacklin and Nicklaus.

Mark, help me out -- but did Seve cough just a tad when the 4-iron in '86 did a rendition of Bobby Darin's famed, "Splish Splash" song.

Archie:

Beg to differ -- check out the '96 / '97 version of Tiger that hit the tour -- he was among the top 4/5 drivers for pure length then. One other thing -- today's technology has compressed players together for sheer length purposes -- give Tiger the ole equipment and balls and he'd still be hitting it quite good and long -- it's the other guys who would fare less so.

Archie, I love you rpolitical tapdance -- call Trenton because they need people who walk the high wire without falling over to either side.

In regards to Jack's temperament -- no doubt he was extremely patient and the consumate strategist in managing his game -- however, there were times when Jack was too cautious and it cost him -- see the '72 BO as one example and even the '75 US Open at Medinah as another. Jack himself said as much -- no doubt being conservative to the max payed off more times than the reverse situation I just mentioned but it shows to me that Jack believed he simply did not need to push the pedal all the way down because those competing against him were likely to wilt. Tiger plays a similar game but he is clearly able -- and sometimes relishes it -- to show he can strike quickly for the knockout blow -- remember the out-of-this-world shot he made at the Canadian Open a few years back from the fairway bunker to the green over water !

Brent:

Lefty needs to win at minimum two more majors -- and it would hep to bag a US Open and/or Brithsh Open in that mix. Likely he won't be playing at Turnberry this year for obvious reasons with his wife and Mom. Phil has had his opportunities -- many times, especially with our national championship. I give it high marks for being resiilent and constantly getting back off the ground and into the fray.

Kevin R:

Read what I said closely -- the word used was "equivalent."  Believe Tiger's wedge at the time was closer to 45 degrees -- not 50. Ditto the irons Jack used were a bit more lofted than what you see today.

[archie_struthers]

 


Matt .........read my posts earlier ,  we agree on Trevino ,   and on the equipment ,  it has had a great leveling effect on Tiger's skills . I think you are right on with his ability to deliver a knockout , it wasn't in Nicklaus personality,  as when he danced across 16 at Augusta it was a real anomaly. 

My point is the debate will rage on , it isn't over . Yet !   There are too many variables and intangibles , some of which you pointed out.

How about the greens being so pure, wouldn't that favor the consummate putter Eldrick even more.  Nicklaus didn't putt on perfect greens , if he did, he might have made even more.

If the golf courses are harder , it would have helped Nicklaus . arguably he would have won more ......see the problems ...it's too early to say......although he's awfully scary.

As to Trenton ........I;m a card carrying anarchist.


 

[JSlonis]

Matt,

That is not the case with Tiger's loft on his PW.  It's been reported for many years that the lofts on his irons are weaker than the current standards.  His 9 iron is probably 45*.

[Brent Hutto]

It's been reported for many years that the lofts on his irons are weaker than the current standards.  His 9 iron is probably 45*.

See, I knew I had something in common with Tiger! He might hit his 45-degree 9-iron further than I hit mine, though.

I wonder if he carries a 24-degree hybrid for those pesky 160 yard shots...

[Phil McDade]

"In regards to Jack's temperament -- no doubt he was extremely patient and the consumate strategist in managing his game -- however, there were times when Jack was too cautious and it cost him -- see the '72 BO as one example "

Matt:

I just can't let this statement go unchallenged. Jack lost the '72 BOpen at Muirfield for a few reasons (mostly Trevino's incredible play the last two days), but being "too cautious" is simply an unfair characterization.

Recap: Among the contenders, Jacklin shot 69 the first day, Jack 70 and Trevino 71 on a day when only two players broke 70 in tough conditions. He followed with a 72, and was 142 and only one back of Trevino and Jacklin, co-leaders at 141. Nicklaus played indifferently in the third round -- an even-par 71 -- but it was more the result of poor ball striking and putting, rather than cautious play. Jacklin was terrific with a 67 (he was, along with Trevino and Jack, arguably the best player in the world at the time), and Trevino's 66 included five straight closing birdies, including two chip-ins.

Nicklaus, six behind Trevino and five behind Jacklin entering the final day, put on one of the great charges in the BOpen on the opening holes of the last round. He birdied the 2nd and 3rd holes, barely missed an eagle on the 5th (tap-in birdie), then birdied the 9th. After a birdie at the tough 10th hole set up by a very bold approach, Jack held the lead alone. Hardly cautious play. He then birdied the 11th after twice having to back off his putt when both Trevino and Jacklin, to the roars of the crowd, sank eagle putts on 9. Jack continued to play great tee to green, but missed birdies putts, all under 20 feet, on the next three holes. At 15, tied for the lead, Jack hit his approach shot to 8 feet from the hole, only to lip out the putt. Two poor shots on 16 and 17, both of which found the rough, resulted in a bogey and then a par on the birdieable par 5 17th. He then missed another birdie putt on 18, settling for a 66 that Henry Longhurst said legitimately could have been a 62; indeed, Nicklaus said 66 was about as poor a score he could've recorded that day. Trevino went on to win, of course aided by his chip-in par at 17, Jacklin's succeeding three-putt bogey there, and Lee's wonderful approach to eight feet on 18.

Jack's loss at Muirfield is more fairly characterized as just coming up short in the face of Trevino's great shotmaking over the final two days of the tourney, and a poorly timed (last seven holes) lapse in his putting stroke -- not cautious play.

[Wayne_Kozun]

In that statistics were not near as detailed as today it's harder to quantify just how far Nicklaus hit it , also he to this day probably had the most patience of any golfer that ever played at the highest level, and often backed off to three wood or  1-iron  . He wasn't near the risk taker that  Tiger is , and might explain a little bit about his lack of breakaway performances ....he really did keep it on cruise control a lot.

I don't agree that Tiger is a risk taker - remember how many drivers he hit at Hoylake a few years ago?  Tiger very often uses his fairway woods or irons off of the tee, and he often shows a lot of patience.  The back 9 at Congressional this past Sunday is a perfect example.  Tiger plays a very smart, patient game - Hoylake being the quintessential example of that.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Kevin R:

Read what I said closely -- the word used was "equivalent."  Believe Tiger's wedge at the time was closer to 45 degrees -- not 50. Ditto the irons Jack used were a bit more lofted than what you see today.

You cannot be more wrong about the loft of Tiger's PW.  It is 50 degrees, was 50 degrees, and has never been something other than 50 degrees.

In other words, no way "equivalent" to Jack's 8-iron.

Where do you get this far-fetched belief that Tiger's PW is/was 45 degrees?

[jonathan_becker]

Tiger's 9 iron = 44*  pw=48*

[Jim Nugent]

Kalen:

So Player is a lesser golfer than Els, because he won nine majors (seven during Jack's run of majors), while Ernie has won two since Tiger arrived? Honestly, do you view Els as a better golfer than Player? Mickelson is better than Trevino?

The whole question is, did golfers like Player win more because they faced easier competition?  If so, citing their better records doesn't prove a thing.  

Ty Cobb has the highest batting average ever.  Does that make him a better hitter than today's top players?  

Yes.

Addendum: Ty Cobb played 24 seasons. In 23 of those, he hit over .300. His career average of .366 is the best all-time in baseball, and eight points higher than Rogers Hornsby, second-best all-time. Cobb hit .420 in one season, second-highest all-time.

His closest active rival is Puljos, with a career average of .334, more than 30 points lower than Cobb. Among recently retired greats, Gwynn has the highest career average at .338, fully 28 points behind Cobb's career record.

You think Cobb would be the great all-time star if he could somehow play today, and average .366 over his career? 

[Kevin_Reilly]

Tiger's 9 iron = 44*  pw=48*

When did he strengthen the lofts of his irons by two degrees?

[jonathan_becker]

deleted.

Kevin_Reilly - read my next post.

[Phil McDade]

Kalen:

So Player is a lesser golfer than Els, because he won nine majors (seven during Jack's run of majors), while Ernie has won two since Tiger arrived? Honestly, do you view Els as a better golfer than Player? Mickelson is better than Trevino?

The whole question is, did golfers like Player win more because they faced easier competition?  If so, citing their better records doesn't prove a thing.  

Ty Cobb has the highest batting average ever.  Does that make him a better hitter than today's top players?  

Yes.

Addendum: Ty Cobb played 24 seasons. In 23 of those, he hit over .300. His career average of .366 is the best all-time in baseball, and eight points higher than Rogers Hornsby, second-best all-time. Cobb hit .420 in one season, second-highest all-time.

His closest active rival is Puljos, with a career average of .334, more than 30 points lower than Cobb. Among recently retired greats, Gwynn has the highest career average at .338, fully 28 points behind Cobb's career record.

You think Cobb would be the great all-time star if he could somehow play today, and average .366 over his career? 

I think Cobb was one of the five or so best baseball players ever to play the game. Tony Gwynn, the only recent modern-day baseballer with a career average remotely close to Cobb's, was not.

Player is one of the five or so best golfers ever to play the game. Els is not. The records are pretty self-evident.

[Jim Nugent]

I think Cobb was one of the five or so best baseball players ever to play the game. Tony Gwynn, the only recent modern-day baseballer with a career average remotely close to Cobb's, was not.

Player is one of the five or so best golfers ever to play the game. Els is not. The records are pretty self-evident.

So even though baseball was near its infancy when Cobb played...even though no black players were allowed to play then, or Puerto Ricans, or Japanese...even though in sports where we can objectively measure performance, today's high school stars do better than the world's best from back then...Ty's record makes him one of the five best players ever?

Does this carry over in football and basketball, too?  i.e. players from the 1930's and 1950's in those sports should be counted among the top several players of all time? 

[jonathan_becker]

Kevin,

I've been mistaken with the instructional book.  The book only had his woods and sw lw loft.  

Since I can't find the old golf digest issue, I retracted my previous post.  My info now rests only by word of mouth.  Though, I'm confident in my source as he got it straight from someone highly credible.  However, if I were you, I would doubt someone just typing from the mouth without printed proof, so that's why I deleted the post.   Now, someone find that old golf digest with tiger's lofts !

[Kevin_Reilly]

That was the Golf Digest feature where he talked about reshafting his wedges, and one didn't have a ferrule?  That is from a long time ago.

Whether his PW is 50* like all the online equipment folks say, or 48* like your source says, it surely wasn't the game-improvement 45* that Matt Ward says. 

[Phil McDade]

I think Cobb was one of the five or so best baseball players ever to play the game. Tony Gwynn, the only recent modern-day baseballer with a career average remotely close to Cobb's, was not.

Player is one of the five or so best golfers ever to play the game. Els is not. The records are pretty self-evident.

So even though baseball was near its infancy when Cobb played...even though no black players were allowed to play then, or Puerto Ricans, or Japanese...even though in sports where we can objectively measure performance, today's high school stars do better than the world's best from back then...Ty's record makes him one of the five best players ever?

Does this carry over in football and basketball, too?  i.e. players from the 1930's and 1950's in those sports should be counted among the top several players of all time? 

Jim:

Is it your argument that the latest who are the fastest, strongest, throw farther, and jump higher are therefore the best all-time? Who was the better sprinter -- Tyson Gay or Jesse Owens?

[Jim Nugent]

Jim:

Is it your argument that the latest who are the fastest, strongest, throw farther, and jump higher are therefore the best all-time? Who was the better sprinter -- Tyson Gay or Jesse Owens?

I think Tyson Gay would beat Jesse Owens by probably 5/10ths of a second over 100 meters.  Maybe more.  To me that makes him a far better sprinter. 

In general, today's top athletes are far better than the stars from the past, IMO.  My guess is the Boston Celtics would get killed, e.g., if they could play against NBA teams now.

BTW, I recall Trevino saying Tiger would demolish all the players of his era.  He thought Jack might give Tiger some competition, IIRC, but even then Tiger was in a league of his own. 

[jonathan_becker]

That was the Golf Digest feature where he talked about reshafting his wedges, and one didn't have a ferrule?  That is from a long time ago.

Whether his PW is 50* like all the online equipment folks say, or 48* like your source says, it surely wasn't the game-improvement 45* that Matt Ward says. 

I agree.

[Kalen Braley]

There is no question that todays Basketball and Football teams would absolutly destroy the ones from yesteryear.  Its simple psychics as todays players are much bigger, stronger, faster, etc.

In golf I don't think this matters near as much, if any at all, and I think comparisons can at least be made.

No doubt, Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, Bryon Nelson, Jack can all play and nothing would be more thrilling to shove em all in a time machine, give em a year to get accustomed to the same equipment, and then let em loose.  But we can't so I think the best thing we can do is look at who they beat, and how often.  And with that I don't think those guys had near the level of quality players that Tiger faces week in and week out on tour...even though Bobby Jones put a very impressive win %.

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen:

I can most certainly buy the football part -- just not the baseball part. Guys back then could throw with plenty of heat and could handle throwing more than 5-6 innings which is the usual amt for most pitchers today.

In regards to golf -- the equipment has certainly changed things. But you also have better trained and better instructed players then years ago. The quirky swings have slowly but surely been replaced by mechanical robotic duplicates over and over again.

I too salute Bobby Jones but as I said previously there were plenty of matches Jones played in the amateur ranks in which his opposition needed Pampers just to shake the guy's hand -- that's how much they were below his level. In many ways he only had a very small handful of matches where he was pressed. No doubt he did win 13 majors and retired at age 28 -- but he was older than the number 28 implies. Jones was likely golfed out and fatiqued from the grind of the competition. No doubt a true champion of the first order but I agree with you that the competition Tiger faces, and even what Jack faced, is far more talented than what the Georgian handled.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

I can most certainly buy the football part -- just not the baseball part. Guys back then could throw with plenty of heat and could handle throwing more than 5-6 innings which is the usual amt for most pitchers today.

In regards to golf -- the equipment has certainly changed things. But you also have better trained and better instructed players then years ago. The quirky swings have slowly but surely been replaced by mechanical robotic duplicates over and over again.

I too salute Bobby Jones but as I said previously there were plenty of matches Jones played in the amateur ranks in which his opposition needed Pampers just to shake the guy's hand -- that's how much they were below his level. In many ways he only had a very small handful of matches where he was pressed. No doubt he did win 13 majors and retired at age 28 -- but he was older than the number 28 implies. Jones was likely golfed out and fatiqued from the grind of the competition. No doubt a true champion of the first order but I agree with you that the competition Tiger faces, and even what Jack faced, is far more talented than what the Georgian handled.

Matt,

I actually wrote Basketball and Football, not Baseball....to me it falls into a similar category as golf!!!

[Sean_A]

The problem with all comparisons between eras is that folks presume that if somehow the greats could be transported in time that they wouldn't quickly figure out how to take advantage of the changes in sport, medicine, fitness, diet etc.  Why do folks assume that the greats of any era wouldn't take advantage of advancements?  I think to be great presumes that they would do whatever to keep their competitive edge.  A great player in any sport at any time is forever a great player imo.  I don't know if Cobb was the best hitter ever, but he certainly HAS to be mentioned in the conversation if it is to have any meaning.  IMO, there are one heck of a lot of very well paid ball players today that aren't a patch on the days of old.  I watch guys struggling to figure out which base to throw the ball for cryin out loud. 

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

When the old timers played MLB, black players were banned from the game.  As soon as blacks were admitted, they rose to the top.  This fact alone pretty well disqualifies any old record to me.  Guys like Cobb and Ruth probably weren't even playing the best competition of their own day. 

Can someone explain to me why they should be considered the all-time greats, when so many people who almost surely would have been tremendous, were not allowed to play? 

[Sean_A]

When the old timers played MLB, black players were banned from the game.  As soon as blacks were admitted, they rose to the top.  This fact alone pretty well disqualifies any old record to me.  Guys like Cobb and Ruth probably weren't even playing the best competition of their own day. 

Can someone explain to me why they should be considered the all-time greats, when so many people who almost surely would have been tremendous, were not allowed to play? 

Jim

Hmmm, so because the powers that be were racists, none of the white guys were great?  Very dubious logic.

Ciao