[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

I think Kyle is spot on here with his analysis.  Because it wasn't just Jack benefiting of playing against much weaker overall fields, so did those other guys who won 7-8 majors in Jacks era.  When Jack was on, he'd get the W, but when he wasn't, it was the handful of next tier guys who accumulated most of the rest of them between em...

[Kalen Braley]

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

Ira, interesting you say this.   Several other players have more or the same amount of rings than Jordan like Russell or Kareem while others like Magic, Duncan, and Kobe only have 1 less.

If anything the only GOAT by this criteria is Tom Brady as his 6 rings, (probably 7 after this year), blows everyone else out of the water.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I think Kyle is spot on here with his analysis.  Because it wasn't just Jack benefiting of playing against much weaker overall fields, so did those other guys who won 7-8 majors in Jacks era.  When Jack was on, he'd get the W, but when he wasn't, it was the handful of next tier guys who accumulated most of the rest of them between em...

That is your assumption. I wouldn't presume to say that Watson, Trevino Player and Palmer only hoovered Jack leftovers because of weak overall competition. Hell, you could argue Jack would have won more on the same assumption basis if not for his elite competition. I think it's best to focus on what happened rather than what might have been.
Watson was a pain in the ass for Jack.

Happy Hockey

[Ira Fishman]

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

Ira, interesting you say this.   Several other players have more or the same amount of rings than Jordan like Russell or Kareem while others like Magic, Duncan, and Kobe only have 1 less.

If anything the only GOAT by this criteria is Tom Brady as his 6 rings, (probably 7 after this year), blows everyone else out of the water.

Not to sidetrack us further when golf is plenty to debate, but I do not use rings as the sole or even primary criterion. That is why team sports particularly complicated.  Bill Russell is my favorite player (yes, I am old enough to have seen him play), but Michael's all around body of work is unmatched.


Ira

[John Kavanaugh]

Which life would you wish upon your son? Only a millennial would pick Tiger.

[John Kavanaugh]

There is a huge difference between taking all you want and all you can get. That is what defines true greatness.

[Jeff Schley]

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

Ira, interesting you say this.   Several other players have more or the same amount of rings than Jordan like Russell or Kareem while others like Magic, Duncan, and Kobe only have 1 less.

If anything the only GOAT by this criteria is Tom Brady as his 6 rings, (probably 7 after this year), blows everyone else out of the water.

Not to sidetrack us further when golf is plenty to debate, but I do not use rings as the sole or even primary criterion. That is why team sports particularly complicated.  Bill Russell is my favorite player (yes, I am old enough to have seen him play), but Michael's all around body of work is unmatched.


Ira

Agreed.
However, the man in the avatar was the best RB in the history of the NFL, especially if he had any OL to block for him like Emmett Smith did in the 70's and early 80's.  I think he had Revie Sorey, 3 lightpoles, and a mailbox on the line.
In team sports it is harder to extrapolate who is the best for much is dependent on your teammates to allow you to shine. In individual sports we don't have that problem. Whoever wins is the best at that activity and the only comparison is across eras.

[John Kavanaugh]

If you have to be given the spotlight you are not the GOAT.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/beargoggleson.com/2017/03/03/chicago-bears-super-bowl-xx-history-touchdown-wasnt/amp/

[Pete_Pittock]

It is Bobby Jones.  Without him there is no Masters and all the histrionics of most of the greatest professional golfers - Palmer, Nicklaus and Woods. If you cite Barbara, what did Winnie do wrong to not be included?  Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson et al had a continual duel from the 60's through the mid 80's, but for 10-15 years after that there were no dominant American players. Maybe golf wouldn't have been a major TV presence and Tiger Wood's father would have started him on tennis lessons.

For those who credit Barbara and Winnie, if Tiger had been luckier in that respect, we would have had this argument five or more years ago, ten if you add injuries.

[Ira Fishman]

If you have to be given the spotlight you are not the GOAT.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/beargoggleson.com/2017/03/03/chicago-bears-super-bowl-xx-history-touchdown-wasnt/amp/

As the article indicates, Payton never complained or even talked about the incident.  It is one of the many reasons that he is my favorite in any sport.  But picking a GOAT in American Football is just too darn hard.  Plus I am not about to risk ticking off any of the active player candidates who help pay my salary which funds my fun playing golf.


Ira

[Jeff Schley]

If you have to be given the spotlight you are not the GOAT.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/beargoggleson.com/2017/03/03/chicago-bears-super-bowl-xx-history-touchdown-wasnt/amp/

Blasphemy / fake news / etc.......

[John Kavanaugh]

Everyone has electric fences in our relationships that remind us where the boundaries are. Jack and Arnie didn’t cross that fence one too many times out of respect for not only their families but those of us who loved them.

[John Kavanaugh]

If Jack had divorced Barbara and started banging Peggy Fleming in 1968 he wouldn’t even be in this discussion.

[Kalen Braley]

Safe to say given how much this site bickers and often wildly disagrees on course rankings, (which is a topic I would presume as a group this place has far more domain knowledge than the average person), I sure as hell won't expect them to agree on GOATs in other areas.... 

[Jason Topp]

I  think the argument that Nicklaus faced better high end competition is pretty compelling.


4+ majors and competed in the same era:

Nicklaus:  Player, Watson, Palmer, Trevino, Ballesteros, Floyd
Woods:  Mickelson, Els, Maclroy, Koepka

3 majors, same era:

Nicklaus:  Irwin, Casper, L. Nelson
Woods:  Spieth, Harrington

2 majors, same era:

Nicklaus:  Miller, Crenshaw, Green, Strange, Stockton, Zoeller, Lyle
Woods:  O'Meara, Daly, Olaazabal, Z. Johnson, B. Watson, R. Goosen

Left out because they really hit the gap in-between the two - Faldo, Price, P. Stewart. 

I would take the old guys in each of these groups.
[/size]
[/size]One could argue that 2010-2017 should be left out for Tiger would make the case for Nicklaus stronger.If one counts second and third place finishes, Nicklaus wins.    [/font]

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira, Jeff


as Richard Pryor quipped about Jim Brown:
He played for 9 years, never got hurt, never missed a game, and ran for over 12,000 yards -- and that was when there was but 3 black guys in the whole league, so you know he didn't have anyone blocking for him!

[Jim Nugent]

However, the man in the avatar was the best RB in the history of the NFL, especially if he had any OL to block for him like Emmett Smith did in the 70's and early 80's.  I think he had Revie Sorey, 3 lightpoles, and a mailbox on the line.
In team sports it is harder to extrapolate who is the best for much is dependent on your teammates to allow you to shine. In individual sports we don't have that problem. Whoever wins is the best at that activity and the only comparison is across eras.

When I heard best RB in the history of the NFL I thought you meant Barry Sanders. 

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with Jack mostly retired, the common refrain I heard was that no one would ever again dominate pro golf.  Competition had grown too fierce, with boatloads of top-notch players.   

It's ironic to now hear the exact opposite: Tiger dominated because he faced weaker competition. 

If Jack had divorced Barbara and started banging Peggy Fleming in 1968 he wouldn’t even be in this discussion.

From what I read, Arnie way out-did Tiger in the fooling-around department, the differences being 1) Arnie stayed married, and 2) he was pre-internet.  I wonder how differently Arnie might have fared in the court of public opinion, if he had played under today's microscope . 

[Sean_A]

However, the man in the avatar was the best RB in the history of the NFL, especially if he had any OL to block for him like Emmett Smith did in the 70's and early 80's.  I think he had Revie Sorey, 3 lightpoles, and a mailbox on the line.
In team sports it is harder to extrapolate who is the best for much is dependent on your teammates to allow you to shine. In individual sports we don't have that problem. Whoever wins is the best at that activity and the only comparison is across eras.

When I heard best RB in the history of the NFL I thought you meant Barry Sanders. 

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with Jack mostly retired, the common refrain I heard was that no one would ever again dominate pro golf.  Competition had grown too fierce, with boatloads of top-notch players.   

It's ironic to now hear the exact opposite: Tiger dominated because he faced weaker competition. 

If Jack had divorced Barbara and started banging Peggy Fleming in 1968 he wouldn’t even be in this discussion.

From what I read, Arnie way out-did Tiger in the fooling-around department, the differences being 1) Arnie stayed married, and 2) he was pre-internet.  I wonder how differently Arnie might have fared in the court of public opinion, if he had played under today's microscope .

I absolutely do not believe Tiger dominated because of weak competition. Tiger dominated because he was far and away the best player of his time. The same is true of Jack, but for some reason people don't believe it. Instead they create fiction about Jack's top level competition based on supposition.

Happy Hockey

[Michael Moore]

I  think the argument that Nicklaus faced better high end competition is pretty compelling.

Jason -
 
You left out Angel Cabrera, Martin Kaymer, and some guy from . . . Fiji . . . who won three majors and beat Tiger dozens of times.
 
These players, especially Vijay and his improbable rise, are vital to this debate. I never hesitate to ask 70-year-old golfers about Nicklaus v. Woods. They invariably tell me that Nicklaus played mainly against Americans, and some guys from England and a guy from Spain and a couple from South Africa, and that Woods took on the world.

[jeffwarne]

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.

very true-especially in my span of Jack/Augusta watching- 1974 to say 1998 where he finished sixth at The Masters at age 58!
I did not witness young Jack who by all accounts was dominant in length and strength, and his early career was reminiscent of early Tiger.


He was Looong as a fat (appearing) 23 year old)and hit towering long irons and as Bobby Jones said "he plays a game with which I am not familiar"
Later Jack was simply solid, consistent, a great putter, and strategic-never beat himself--but did get beat a few times.
Tiger never had a Watson(who got the best of Jack directly head to head several times), I'd say he had a Palmer(Mickelson)
Maybe Koepka and Rory are his Player and Casper

[jeffwarne]

I'm in the camp that says it's a lot harder to win multiple times when 100 plus of the players in the field can win, as opposed to 15.
In the 1960's and even into the 70's many of the players in a given week were club pros with jobs in the summer.
But....


The other side of me says that due to less people capable of winning, a very strong corps of major winners was developed.
Meaning, even though the thinner fields may have created more "elites" (as defined by Major wins)
those elites were tougher to beat when in the hunt BECAUSE they were USED to being in the hunt, and didn't fade away as much of Tiger's competition did from not being used to the rarified air in the spotlight.


In other words, I agree it's hard to compare different eras.
I've got Jack as the GOAT but just by a whisker and majors at 20-18 Jack.

[John Kavanaugh]

The only reason 100 people can win at anytime now is because it doesn't matter if they lose. It comes down to the old question of how many 5th graders can you beat up at any one time. No matter how many it takes they are all just 5th graders. Jack went up against individuals who needed to and could win on their own. Tiger plays against one shot wonders with Ferrari collections.

[Rob Marshall]

I'm in the camp that says it's a lot harder to win multiple times when 100 plus of the players in the field can win, as opposed to 15.
In the 1960's and even into the 70's many of the players in a given week were club pros with jobs in the summer.
But....


The other side of me says that due to less people capable of winning, a very strong corps of major winners was developed.
Meaning, even though the thinner fields may have created more "elites" (as defined by Major wins)
those elites were tougher to beat when in the hunt BECAUSE they were USED to being in the hunt, and didn't fade away as much of Tiger's competition did from not being used to the rarified air in the spotlight.


In other words, I agree it's hard to compare different eras.
I've got Jack as the GOAT but just by a whisker and majors at 20-18 Jack.

Jeff,
What has always amazed me is the number of 2nd and 3rd place finishes Jack had in majors. Tiger either won or was seemingly out of the hunt. IMO that gives the edge to Jack.

[jeffwarne]

I'm in the camp that says it's a lot harder to win multiple times when 100 plus of the players in the field can win, as opposed to 15.
In the 1960's and even into the 70's many of the players in a given week were club pros with jobs in the summer.
But....


The other side of me says that due to less people capable of winning, a very strong corps of major winners was developed.
Meaning, even though the thinner fields may have created more "elites" (as defined by Major wins)
those elites were tougher to beat when in the hunt BECAUSE they were USED to being in the hunt, and didn't fade away as much of Tiger's competition did from not being used to the rarified air in the spotlight.


In other words, I agree it's hard to compare different eras.
I've got Jack as the GOAT but just by a whisker and majors at 20-18 Jack.

Jeff,
What has always amazed me is the number of 2nd and 3rd place finishes Jack had in majors. Tiger either won or was seemingly out of the hunt. IMO that gives the edge to Jack.

Not unless you start a thread called 37....

[Jason Topp]

I  think the argument that Nicklaus faced better high end competition is pretty compelling.

Jason -
 
You left out Angel Cabrera, Martin Kaymer, and some guy from . . . Fiji . . . who won three majors and beat Tiger dozens of times.
 
These players, especially Vijay and his improbable rise, are vital to this debate. I never hesitate to ask 70-year-old golfers about Nicklaus v. Woods. They invariably tell me that Nicklaus played mainly against Americans, and some guys from England and a guy from Spain and a couple from South Africa, and that Woods took on the world.

I stand corrected. I do not think it changes the analysis. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()