[Ira Fishman]

Enough said.


Ira

[archie_struthers]

 


At times I've been a doubter of him coming back but his talent is other worldy!

[MCirba]

He is the best golfer ever.  And I'm a Nicklaus man.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, he is. And I'm a Nicklaus man, too.

But here's a wonderfully written article on the 'other' 82, by the very underrated Guy Yokom. Not as flashy as some, not as self- consciously 'smart' or 'humorous' as others, and not as 'hip' as most (try to be) -- but a better writer, and in this one (for my tastes at least) at his best. I'm glad: because Sam Snead deserves it.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/its-time-to-remember-sam-snead

[MCirba]

Some historical perspective from Michael Bamberger...
https://www.golf.com/news/columns/2019/10/27/tiger-woods-82nd-win-zozo-championship/?fbclid=IwAR3fSJXvS_Kab1cdX2dwDkDymkq_b7x2iAUgVNOcLanKWQyg5UEWxXGS18M

[Joe Hancock]

De Vicenzo won 230 professional tournaments worldwide, but not an apples to apples comparison of numbers......

[archie_struthers]

 


I'm thinking Snead and Gary player have shot their age just about every time they played post 72 , pretty cool>two incredible physical specimens

[John Kavanaugh]

Speaking of 82 that is how old this dude is that I’m getting ready to play Wolf with at 6,400 yds.


https://www.nhra.com/news/2016/fast-eddie-schartman

[Niall C]

I'm not a Nicklaus man but he's the greatest. Woods is though a good contender for no. 2.


Niall

[JESII]

Niall,


Who would be the other?


And to what to do attribute to Jack that Tiger hasn't done? 18 professional majors?


I always figured Jack would win the longevity argument, but now 22 years between majors versus 24 is a tie in my book.

[John Kavanaugh]

Barbara breaks the tie.

[Sean_A]

Barbara breaks the tie.

 

Happy Hockey

[jeffwarne]

Niall,


Who would be the other?


And to what to do attribute to Jack that Tiger hasn't done? 18 professional majors?


I always figured Jack would win the longevity argument, but now 22 years between majors versus 24 is a tie in my book.

Before Tiger...
First round leaders rarely won,
Second round leaders occasionally won
third round leaders were about 50-50
Tiger blew those stats out of the water and frankly spoiled/distorted an entire generation's expectations of what was possible/expected.


Interestingly, Jack has two US Amateur wins and Tiger has three.
For years the press referred to Jack as having twenty and suddenly they cut him to 18.
https://www.golf.com/ap-news/missing-majors-jack-nicklaus
So in my mind Tiger has 18 and Jack 20


Young Jack was a skilled, disciplined athlete amongst but amongst a much smaller pool of skilled but less athletic players, later he killed them with his mind-yet still with enough power to compliment his other skills.You can't look at a smaller pool of players and say his competition was better because they won more majors-there will always be more majors to go around in a smaller, less deep pool. Look at any State Open winner Board or Club Championship Board-or for that matter the PGA Tour Champions.(a small number of players dominate the lists)
Jack had a balance in his life which extended his career and kept him healthy for the most part.
Jack's goal was to put himself into position on the final day and see who was left standing-effective much of the time but resulted in more seconds than firsts in Professional majors.
Tiger's goal was to separate himself from the field and he has more than twice as many wins as runnerups.
Tiger burned brighter faster and played the best golf ever played for 10-12 years.
Who knows what in store for his future?

[Ira Fishman]

Even though I started this thread, I am a Hogan guy largely because of what he accomplished (smaller field acknowledged) after the auto accident.  But what Tiger has done is remarkable.  His winning percentage is 22.8% (only Hogan also is above 20%).


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Jack only had a couple dozen good players in his fields to beat week in and out...

You put Tiger against those fields and he might almost double the number of Jack's wins...

Tiger is the GOAT....

[Peter Pallotta]

With the possible exception of Jim and Jeff, none of the rest of us on this thread know what we're talking about.
Smaller/less talented fields, technology, winning percentage etc. What does any of that mean?  The very greatest players stand apart from and above all of that, all of those 'analytics' forged in the feverish brains of a group of couch potatoes.
Only the (very very) small number of other great players have a true insight into what golf mastery is all about.
Yes, I'm a Jack man myself, but Tiger I say is the best of all time -- but that means nothing coming from me (or you). 
And in regards the other Mr. 82, for all I know *he* was the greatest of all time.
Why?
Exhibit A, from the article: of all the millions of golf shots he's played and seen played, Lee Trevino says the one that stands out the most is a shot that Snead hit:
Driver, off the fairway, with the ball below his feet -- a high draw to a right-hand flag from 220 yards, with water on the right. “He took very little time, just hit it and reacted like it was something he did all the time.” [Note: Sam was in his mid 50s at the time, using a steel shafted 43 inch driver with a persimmon head.]
Exhibit B:
From Dan Jenkins, the most devoted of Hogan men: “The weeks where Sam showed up with his best game, I’d feel hopeless and mad because I knew Ben couldn’t beat him. No one could.”
Am I saying Sam Snead was the GOAT? No.
But what the hell would I know about it anyway? Or you?

   

[Jason Topp]

It is interesting to watch how Tiger wins these days.  It seems different in character than his wins 10 years ago.  A big fade off the tee he can rely on to put the ball in play, his usual great iron play and an ability to make the putt that is critical.  He no longer has a power advantage but seems more in control off the tee when healthy. 


I thought the par 5 midway through the final nine was a classic example.  Matsuyama gives himself a short birdie putt to pull within 1.  He misses.  Tiger hits a crappy 2nd into the rough but a decent third that leaves a bit longer putt.  His putt went dead center.  I took the dog for a walk.   

[BHoover]

It is interesting to watch how Tiger wins these days.  It seems different in character than his wins 10 years ago.  A big fade off the tee he can rely on to put the ball in play, his usual great iron play and an ability to make the putt that is critical.  He no longer has a power advantage but seems more in control off the tee when healthy. 

I thought the par 5 midway through the final nine was a classic example.  Matsuyama gives himself a short birdie putt to pull within 1.  He misses.  Tiger hits a crappy 2nd into the rough but a decent third that leaves a bit longer putt.  His putt went dead center.  I took the dog for a walk.

I think Tiger’s current playing style is similar to how Nicklaus would win — hit high-percentage shots and wait for others to make crucial mistakes. Particularly in the Masters, that was precisely how he played the final round.

[Sean_A]

I am a Braid man, but here are my thoughts.

1. Making comparisons across eras is a fool's errand. 

2. The very elite players of any generation would be so in any other generation.

3. The elite players of Jack's era were better than Tiger's era.

4. Yes, more guys today are capable comepetitors, but fewer are proven big time winners when compared to Jack's era. Really, do you take Rory, Els & Michelson over Watson, Trevino & Player? Not me, thats for sure.  Saying guys have the talent may earn some loads of dosh, but doesn't mean much until they proven.

5. You can only beat who plays. 

6.  The majors are the only real measurement of greatness.  It makes it easier to compare (yes a fools errand) jack and Tiger because both are post 1960...the year when I consider the PGA to Masters to be proper majors.  Once a guy wins dozens of non-majors the final tally is meaningless for this type of discussion. Jack having one more each of The Masters, PGA and US Open means more to me than x more tour victories or holding all four majors at once...which is in essence the result of being the dominant player in the world for a good few years. Still, this to me is one of the most impressive feats ever in golf.  Combine that with longevity, majors and tour wins and I reckon Tiger is still at least two majors shy of passing Jack.  Thats how good Jack was and that isn't taking into account his awesome top 5 finishes record in majors. However, its not just any two majors because not all majors are equal!  If Tiger can win an Open and any other major I will happily concede he was better than Jack. If Tiger can win three of any comination of majors I will concede the same. 

Happy Hockey

[Kyle Harris]

I am a Braid man, but here are my thoughts.

1. Making comparisons across eras is a fool's errand. 

2. The very elite players of any generation would be so in any other generation.

3. The elite players of Jack's era were better than Tiger's era.

4. Yes, more guys today are capable comepetitors, but fewer are proven big time winners when compared to Jack's era. Really, do you take Rory, Els & Michelson over Watson, Trevino & Player? Not me, thats for sure.  Saying guys have the talent may earn some loads of dosh, but doesn't mean much until they proven.

5. You can only beat who plays. 

6.  The majors are the only real measurement of greatness.  It makes it easier to compare (yes a fools errand) jack and Tiger because both are post 1960...the year when I consider the PGA to Masters to be proper majors.  Once a guy wins dozens of non-majors the final tally is meaningless for this type of discussion. Jack having one more each of The Masters, PGA and US Open means more to me than x more tour victories or holding all four majors at once...which is in essence the result of being the dominant player in the world for a good few years. Still, this to me is one of the most impressive feats ever in golf.  Combine that with longevity, majors and tour wins and I reckon Tiger is still at least two majors shy of passing Jack.  Thats how good Jack was and that isn't taking into account his awesome top 5 finishes record in majors. However, its not just any two majors because not all majors are equal!  If Tiger can win an Open and any other major I will happily concede he was better than Jack. If Tiger can win three of any comination of majors I will concede the same. 

Happy Hockey

Only one guy can win any tournament, which is why your point #3 is just flat wrong.

[Sean_A]

I am a Braid man, but here are my thoughts.

1. Making comparisons across eras is a fool's errand. 

2. The very elite players of any generation would be so in any other generation.

3. The elite players of Jack's era were better than Tiger's era.

4. Yes, more guys today are capable comepetitors, but fewer are proven big time winners when compared to Jack's era. Really, do you take Rory, Els & Michelson over Watson, Trevino & Player? Not me, thats for sure.  Saying guys have the talent may earn some loads of dosh, but doesn't mean much until they proven.

5. You can only beat who plays. 

6.  The majors are the only real measurement of greatness.  It makes it easier to compare (yes a fools errand) jack and Tiger because both are post 1960...the year when I consider the PGA to Masters to be proper majors.  Once a guy wins dozens of non-majors the final tally is meaningless for this type of discussion. Jack having one more each of The Masters, PGA and US Open means more to me than x more tour victories or holding all four majors at once...which is in essence the result of being the dominant player in the world for a good few years. Still, this to me is one of the most impressive feats ever in golf.  Combine that with longevity, majors and tour wins and I reckon Tiger is still at least two majors shy of passing Jack.  Thats how good Jack was and that isn't taking into account his awesome top 5 finishes record in majors. However, its not just any two majors because not all majors are equal!  If Tiger can win an Open and any other major I will happily concede he was better than Jack. If Tiger can win three of any comination of majors I will concede the same. 

Happy Hockey

Only one guy can win any tournament, which is why your point #3 is just flat wrong.

I am not sure I understand you, but thats ok because your point was stated vehemently. 


Happy Hockey

[Kyle Harris]

It wasn't vehement.

The subset of golfers that could win in Jack's era was much smaller, therefore, their success rate is much higher. Half the field 40 years ago was hardly trying, at least not at the level that the bottom half of a PGA Tour field tries in this day and age. Your Monday qualifiers aren't local club pros today - they're mini-tour types.

We are still in the midst of the Tiger era.

[Sean_A]

It wasn't vehement.

The subset of golfers that could win in Jack's era was much smaller, therefore, their success rate is much higher. Half the field 40 years ago was hardly trying, at least not at the level that the bottom half of a PGA Tour field tries in this day and age. Your Monday qualifiers aren't local club pros today - they're mini-tour types.

We are still in the midst of the Tiger era.

Yes, I understand...see #4.  However, Jack's elite competition was better than Tiger's. I say that because they won loads of majors which in effect is by far the best measuring stick.  All anyone can think about Tiger's elite competition is assume they would have won more majors if not for stronger overall competition.  I don't use the word elite lightly...it includes guys like Palmer, Player, Watson and Trevino. I can't say any of Tiger's elite competition has reached that level. Although, Els is knocking on the door.  Phil and Rory aren't all that far behind.  I hope other modern big guns can get going on a run. It would be fun to watch.


Happy Hockey

[Ira Fishman]

With the possible exception of Jim and Jeff, none of the rest of us on this thread know what we're talking about.
Smaller/less talented fields, technology, winning percentage etc. What does any of that mean?  The very greatest players stand apart from and above all of that, all of those 'analytics' forged in the feverish brains of a group of couch potatoes.
Only the (very very) small number of other great players have a true insight into what golf mastery is all about.
Yes, I'm a Jack man myself, but Tiger I say is the best of all time -- but that means nothing coming from me (or you). 
And in regards the other Mr. 82, for all I know *he* was the greatest of all time.
Why?
Exhibit A, from the article: of all the millions of golf shots he's played and seen played, Lee Trevino says the one that stands out the most is a shot that Snead hit:
Driver, off the fairway, with the ball below his feet -- a high draw to a right-hand flag from 220 yards, with water on the right. “He took very little time, just hit it and reacted like it was something he did all the time.” [Note: Sam was in his mid 50s at the time, using a steel shafted 43 inch driver with a persimmon head.]
Exhibit B:
From Dan Jenkins, the most devoted of Hogan men: “The weeks where Sam showed up with his best game, I’d feel hopeless and mad because I knew Ben couldn’t beat him. No one could.”
Am I saying Sam Snead was the GOAT? No.
But what the hell would I know about it anyway? Or you?

   

Peter,


I have picked a GOAT in a sport only once.  But not so much for the reasons you state.  Having spent 10 years working in American Professional football, I know that I could never tell you which player coming out of college will be successful because that does require knowledge about how the game really is played.  However, a fan who pays attention across a long period of time does have very good insight into the quality of the players.  I have not picked a GOAT because of all the variables in measuring across eras, and in team sports the additional variables multiply.  But I certainly feel I am knowledgeable enough to tell you which players should be in the conversation for GOAT.


The one time I have picked: Michael Jordan.  Not exactly going out on a limb I admit.


Ira

[John Kavanaugh]

I’ve known far to many amateur golfers who have sacrificed relationships because of their golf habit and everything that comes with it. If we are going to look up to a man who we consider the greatest of all time we need to look past just the numbers of wins and such. I’m sure that jack has made mistakes as both a husband and father but Barbara is still there and Jack had his son on the bag for the greatest championship ever won. He is a goddamned stone cold family man of the first order. Maybe Tiger will find a good woman and have his son on the bag for that 19th Major. Maybe not.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()