News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #75 on: October 29, 2019, 09:52:04 PM »
I’ve found that you can’t be truly happy without disregarding the happiness of the people who love you. That’s all.




Mike Schott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #76 on: October 29, 2019, 10:01:35 PM »
I’ve found that you can’t be truly happy without disregarding the happiness of the people who love you. That’s all.


We are getting OT but I don’t find that to be true. In fact regarding their happiness is when I’m the happiest.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #77 on: October 29, 2019, 10:03:24 PM »
I type this as I sit at the airport waiting on my wife. She could have taken an Uber home.

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #78 on: October 30, 2019, 01:52:01 AM »
Looking at Wikipedia I was not impressed with most of the second place finishers when JN was the champion.

Here are the victims- I include all runner up finishers, even if they were tied for runner up. 

Arnold Palmer (3x)
Tony Lema
Dave Ragan
Gary Player
Tommy Jacobs
Doug Sanders (2x)
Dave Thomas
Billy Casper
Bruce Crampton (4x)
Bobby Mitchell
Tom Weiskopf (2x)
Johnny Miller
Ben Crenshaw
Raymond Floyd
Tom Kite (2x)
Simon Owen
Isao Aoki
Andy Bean
Greg Norman

Here is Tiger's list:
Tom Kite
Sergio Garcia
Ernie Els (2x)
Miguel Angel Jimenez
Thomas Bjorn
Bob May
David Duval
Retief Goosen
Phil Mickelson
Chris DiMarco (2x)
Colin Montgomerie
Shaun Micheel
Woody Austin
Rocco mediate
Dustin Johnson
Brooks Koepka
Xander Schauffele

Tom Kite gets the trivia honor as the only player in history to ever finish runner up to Jack and Tiger in a major. 

If Jack Nicklaus never existed, it looks like Bruce Crampton would be much more well known. 

Pat Burke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #79 on: October 30, 2019, 02:56:55 AM »
FWIW.
I'm from a family of golf professionals, which only means I've been around the game my whole life, not that I have special knowledge that must be acknowledged, just my own memories and thoughts.


My dad played in a few tour events, and even as a very young kid, I watched Westchester and the old Philadelphia IVB Classic.  I was fortunate to see a lot of amazing golf.  Later I got to play, now I get coach a bit and be around some really good young players trying to find their way.


I'm NOT going to comment on Nicklaus' competition, because other than as a fan, I simply was not near enough to it.


But I'd bet my house that the depth and abilities of the players the last ten years is significantly better than the early/mid 90's when I was playing.  The fact that at his age, after his injuries, and after his self induced damages, that Tiger can still basically beat todays' players is amazing.


I do not believe that Jack beat better competition, I do believe he beat some great players.


But I truly believe nobody has come close to ever playing the game of tournament golf better than Tiger.


Jack has the best record, Tiger has played the game better than anybody.  IMO




JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #80 on: October 30, 2019, 06:27:23 AM »
FWIW.
I'm from a family of golf professionals, which only means I've been around the game my whole life, not that I have special knowledge that must be acknowledged, just my own memories and thoughts.


My dad played in a few tour events, and even as a very young kid, I watched Westchester and the old Philadelphia IVB Classic.  I was fortunate to see a lot of amazing golf.  Later I got to play, now I get coach a bit and be around some really good young players trying to find their way.


I'm NOT going to comment on Nicklaus' competition, because other than as a fan, I simply was not near enough to it.


But I'd bet my house that the depth and abilities of the players the last ten years is significantly better than the early/mid 90's when I was playing.  The fact that at his age, after his injuries, and after his self induced damages, that Tiger can still basically beat todays' players is amazing.


I do not believe that Jack beat better competition, I do believe he beat some great players.


But I truly believe nobody has come close to ever playing the game of tournament golf better than Tiger.


Jack has the best record, Tiger has played the game better than anybody.  IMO




Again,thanks for taking the time to type that. Your opinion is more equal than most anyone else's.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #81 on: October 30, 2019, 09:59:44 AM »
Good post Pat, thank you.




Here's a view of the debate on Nicklaus' competition versus Tiger's...and overall depth of professional golf in those eras


The position seems to be that because the primary challengers to Nicklaus were fewer and more successful, they were better. Watson, Trevino, Player, Palmer...all viewed as all-time greats while only a few of Tiger's primary competitors even come close to those levels with Mickelson, Els and Singh as the top three (I think).


How does Nicklaus' competition compare to that of Snead? It's difficult to argue that any of Nicklaus' competition reaches the heights of Nelson and Hogan, isn't it? They are two all-time top 10 players playing right along side Snead...




jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #82 on: October 30, 2019, 10:05:41 AM »
The amazing things is, we can argue there was less competition(and there was in the bottom half of the fields), but man...
Just looking at the golf swings and ball striking prowess of Hogan, Snead and Nelson-all simultaneously


Then consider Bobby Locke, who beat up on them all, was barred from competing...




Different eras
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #83 on: October 30, 2019, 02:29:18 PM »
As a Boston native, I've always been a Bobby Orr guy. But when it comes to GOATs, it's hard to argue against Gretsky. Is there any athlete in a major sport who holds all the major scoring records, and has put them so far out of reach it's laughable?


Arguments can be made in the other sports (although Jordan seems like a lock as well), but in hockey, I feel like the case is closed.


In golf ... Tiger's career isn't over. And more than any athlete in history, he's the one guy I would never bet against.


My favourite Gretzky stat is that he and his brother hold the record for the most points by brothers in NHL history (his brother I believe had one assist).


As to other sports, Jahangir Khan won 555 consecutive matches at squash. I think it was nearly 10 years without losing a single match. Don Bradman in cricket would be another contender. For the Americans here, I read that by number of standard deviations above the mean, Bradman's batting average would be roughly equivalent to a .376 batting average in baseball.


IMO Tiger's record stands above all others. I think it's vaguely arguable that Jack is the GOAT (although I think you're on loose ground in the process). I don't think there is any doubt that Tiger is the BOAT. 4 majors in a row and winning a Masters by 12 and a US Open by 15 seal that one in my mind.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #84 on: October 31, 2019, 09:41:51 AM »

I do not believe that Jack beat better competition, I do believe he beat some great players.


But I truly believe nobody has come close to ever playing the game of tournament golf better than Tiger.



I was at OSU when Nicklaus, Weiskopf, and Sneed (Ed) played their best golf and watched each pretty closely.  I am obviously biased, but agree wholeheartedly with Pat (who, btw, has no need to be so humble).


We are privileged to be witnessing the Tiger era (as I was during JN's when I was playing my best golf and paid much closer attention).  JN had a more nurturing, stable upbringing and better guidance.  Both were blessed with great self-assurance and competitive minds.  Perhaps Tiger had more physical ability and drive?     

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #85 on: October 31, 2019, 10:30:02 AM »
As a Boston native, I've always been a Bobby Orr guy. But when it comes to GOATs, it's hard to argue against Gretsky. Is there any athlete in a major sport who holds all the major scoring records, and has put them so far out of reach it's laughable?


Arguments can be made in the other sports (although Jordan seems like a lock as well), but in hockey, I feel like the case is closed.


In golf ... Tiger's career isn't over. And more than any athlete in history, he's the one guy I would never bet against.


My favourite Gretzky stat is that he and his brother hold the record for the most points by brothers in NHL history (his brother I believe had one assist).


As to other sports, Jahangir Khan won 555 consecutive matches at squash. I think it was nearly 10 years without losing a single match. Don Bradman in cricket would be another contender. For the Americans here, I read that by number of standard deviations above the mean, Bradman's batting average would be roughly equivalent to a .376 batting average in baseball.


IMO Tiger's record stands above all others. I think it's vaguely arguable that Jack is the GOAT (although I think you're on loose ground in the process). I don't think there is any doubt that Tiger is the BOAT. 4 majors in a row and winning a Masters by 12 and a US Open by 15 seal that one in my mind.


Michael,


I've heard that stat many times about the Gretzky's holding the record for most points by brothers - the joke being Wayne accumulated 2,857 points while brother Brent picked up 4 points in his career.  After reading your post, my mind jumped straight to the Sutter brothers from Alberta and they actually have more points, granted there are 6 Sutter's (Brent 829 pts., Brian 636 pts., Darryl 279 pts., Duane 342 pts., Rich 315 pts., Ron 533 pts.,) who totalled 2,934 combined points.


Tyler

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #86 on: October 31, 2019, 11:13:51 AM »
As a Boston native, I've always been a Bobby Orr guy. But when it comes to GOATs, it's hard to argue against Gretsky. Is there any athlete in a major sport who holds all the major scoring records, and has put them so far out of reach it's laughable?


Arguments can be made in the other sports (although Jordan seems like a lock as well), but in hockey, I feel like the case is closed.


In golf ... Tiger's career isn't over. And more than any athlete in history, he's the one guy I would never bet against.


My favourite Gretzky stat is that he and his brother hold the record for the most points by brothers in NHL history (his brother I believe had one assist).


As to other sports, Jahangir Khan won 555 consecutive matches at squash. I think it was nearly 10 years without losing a single match. Don Bradman in cricket would be another contender. For the Americans here, I read that by number of standard deviations above the mean, Bradman's batting average would be roughly equivalent to a .376 batting average in baseball.


IMO Tiger's record stands above all others. I think it's vaguely arguable that Jack is the GOAT (although I think you're on loose ground in the process). I don't think there is any doubt that Tiger is the BOAT. 4 majors in a row and winning a Masters by 12 and a US Open by 15 seal that one in my mind.


The Khan record brought to mind Edwin Moses who won 122 400 Meter Hurdle races, a winning streak that lasted just short of 10 years.  However, I would not be confident naming him the GOAT in track and field because there are so many other worthy contenders.


Ira

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #87 on: November 02, 2019, 08:25:49 AM »

We are privileged to be witnessing the Tiger era (as I was during JN's when I was playing my best golf and paid much closer attention).  JN had a more nurturing, stable upbringing and better guidance.  Both were blessed with great self-assurance and competitive minds.  Perhaps Tiger had more physical ability and drive?     


Lou


Interesting you mention upbringing and support. In terms of upbringing what makes you think that Tigers was any less good than Jack's ? For sure Jack appears to have had a very happy family life as an adult whereas Tiger's has been very much more traumatic, but is that down to the parents or perhaps bad choices/more temptation in the case of Tiger ? And if you are looking at the impact of their upbringing purely in terms of their golf career, where did Tiger's folks go wrong ?


In terms of support, other than from family, has there ever been a player better supported than Tiger ? From his sponsors (both Titliest and Nike) to his management company, he has had the most fantastic support. Ever since he hit the scene as a phenomenally talented amateur he has been looked after in every way. Not only logistical and financial support but also mentoring from guys like Crenshaw and O'Meara. I'm not sure Nicklaus got any support like that as he was more of an ugly duckling when he started. Nicklaus also had to go through qualifying for tournaments and probably flew on commercial scheduled flights for a lot of his career. When do you think Tiger last saw the inside of a Ryan Air plane ?  ;D


Niall

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #88 on: November 02, 2019, 08:41:47 AM »
As an aside, Cathy Whitworth had many more than 82 professional wins as did Mickie Wright and Mickie Wright retired when she was her mid-30’s.
Atb

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #89 on: November 02, 2019, 09:26:25 AM »

We are privileged to be witnessing the Tiger era (as I was during JN's when I was playing my best golf and paid much closer attention).  JN had a more nurturing, stable upbringing and better guidance.  Both were blessed with great self-assurance and competitive minds.  Perhaps Tiger had more physical ability and drive?     


Lou


Interesting you mention upbringing and support. In terms of upbringing what makes you think that Tigers was any less good than Jack's ? For sure Jack appears to have had a very happy family life as an adult whereas Tiger's has been very much more traumatic, but is that down to the parents or perhaps bad choices/more temptation in the case of Tiger ? And if you are looking at the impact of their upbringing purely in terms of their golf career, where did Tiger's folks go wrong ?


In terms of support, other than from family, has there ever been a player better supported than Tiger ? From his sponsors (both Titliest and Nike) to his management company, he has had the most fantastic support. Ever since he hit the scene as a phenomenally talented amateur he has been looked after in every way. Not only logistical and financial support but also mentoring from guys like Crenshaw and O'Meara. I'm not sure Nicklaus got any support like that as he was more of an ugly duckling when he started. Nicklaus also had to go through qualifying for tournaments and probably flew on commercial scheduled flights for a lot of his career. When do you think Tiger last saw the inside of a Ryan Air plane ?  ;D


Niall
How can we possibly psycho analyze why Tiger made his continuous infidelities? It is also the times we live, where Tiger's parents were divorced/separated (not living together for sure) and his dad was a philanderer. This wasn't the 1940/50's when people stayed married and committed to each and their families to a much higher degree. Unfortunately more than half of the marriages end in divorce and this IMO has had a corrosive effect on society in many ways, with Tiger's case perhaps just being another instance.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #90 on: November 02, 2019, 09:34:53 AM »
Drop the marriage argument if you want and discuss other team events like caddie relationships and Ryder Cup performance.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #91 on: November 02, 2019, 10:59:47 AM »

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #92 on: November 02, 2019, 12:03:10 PM »
Well Jeff, you might not be able to psycho-analyse Tiger but you had a right good go at doing it for society as a whole. Anyway, let's wait and see what Dr Duran says  ;)


Niall

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #93 on: November 02, 2019, 12:44:29 PM »
After reading this article why would anyone buy the book?


https://nypost.com/2019/11/02/how-tiger-woods-became-a-narcissistic-cheapskate-whod-look-right-through-you/


Good question.  Amusing that those who accuse him of being cheap, a bad tipper rode his coat tails and benefited greatly by association (Tiger's coach, caddie, subject of books, etc.).  It's all relative, right?  (I was once denounced in front of several people as a "bad tipper" by someone in this DG because I "only" gave his hired bartender a $10 bill for getting me one beer and a small bowl of gumbo, an amount that I would have thought as a former bartender as extremely generous.)


As someone who knows a bit about Messrs. Haney and Sampson, both with strong north Texas connections, I suspect that they know intimately about transactional relationships.  In fact, such is human nature; songs have been written about it (e.g. "Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out").  I've seen it often at GCA.com events.


Niall,


Ok, I will bite.  It is my opinion that a nurturing, stable, supportive upbringing is more conducive to well-functioning adults.  I am sure that JN has had some dysfunction in his life, most of us have.  But TW in addition to fighting the racial prejudices of his time, had an overbearing, philandering father and a mother who though may have provided some normalcy, could not have been happy with the situation at home.  Add the financial pressures he faced vs. JN's Scioto Country Club lifestyle to the mix.


As to support from others, I knew of some in JN's inner circle- took two lessons from Jack Grout at MV before moving to TX- and none that I can think of depended on JN for their commercial success (Grout probably got as much notoriety and commercial value late in his career for helping Ray Floyd with hitting his 5-wood en-route to winning the Masters as he did rearing JN).  Angelo and Stevie were very different animals; the former much more of a bag carrier than an advisor; the latter, just like Haney, obviously seeking to be credited substantially for their principal's success.


What better mentoring could one have than loving, nurturing parents who didn't push their son in a single direction?  JN played multiple sports well into college.  Woody Hayes even looked at him for football and encouraged him to pursue golf.  Supposedly he was a good basketball and tennis player.


TW is a phenomenal athlete with a great golf mind.  We don't know what he would have accomplished if he had a different, stable upbringing, but my bet is that much of the turmoil at the peak of his career would have been avoided.  Against all odds, his story continues, not only as a golfer, but as an engaged human being.  I think that he is more important to golf today than JN ever was and his work with the First Tee Program is extremely important.


P.S.- I fell couple degrees short in the subject discipline, but you may address me as Carnac if you like.
 




Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #94 on: November 02, 2019, 09:56:53 PM »
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....
Bingo.

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.

Nah. They also benefited from the weak fields.

Half the fields in a lot of Jack's tournaments were club pros. Very few international players. Gary Player won a "major" in which three or four Americans - two amateurs and NONE of any name - even bothered to play (I think none made the cut).


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...

Yep.


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.

It's not supposition. It's just math.


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.

Another result of… wait for it… the incredibly weak fields Jack faced.


As a Boston native, I've always been a Bobby Orr guy. But when it comes to GOATs, it's hard to argue against Gretsky.

One can make a REALLY good case for Mario Lemieux.


Jack dominated, yes, and perhaps moreso in his era than Tiger did across the span of of his (still going) era.

Jack didn't really "dominate." He wasn't even the most dominant player for the year half as often as Tiger has been against stiffer competition.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #95 on: November 02, 2019, 10:15:38 PM »
Really, math proves Tiger was better? Very heavy sigh.

Happy Hockey
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #96 on: November 03, 2019, 01:42:30 AM »
Well Jeff, you might not be able to psycho-analyse Tiger but you had a right good go at doing it for society as a whole. Anyway, let's wait and see what Dr Duran says  ;)


Niall
Book an appointment with my secretary as I'll be here all week.  :)
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #97 on: November 03, 2019, 08:09:56 AM »
Really, math proves Tiger was better? Very heavy sigh.
Math supports the idea that the strength and depth of field is much, much better now than in Jack's day. That Tiger had to beat significantly more and better players overall. That it was easier to win majors in the 60s and 70s than it has been in the 90s to 2010s.

The only number to which Jack people can cling is 18 > 15, but if you add in strength and depth of field, 15 >>> 18 in the minds of many, and 82 > 72. And Tiger was far, far more dominant to boot: if you sort their years in order from best to worst and play match play against them, you get to about year 12 or 13 before Jack notches a win.

If you honestly believe that Jack was the better player, IMO you're ignorant to the strength and depth of field, you think that Jack didn't really try that hard or something, or you're weighting the stuff outside of golf (personal life, family, wife, general like or dislike) into the equation.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 82
« Reply #98 on: November 03, 2019, 08:36:08 AM »
Modern equipment has created the illusion of strength of field. Anyone can win because anyone can find the club face under pressure.

Peter Pallotta

Re: 82
« Reply #99 on: November 03, 2019, 09:25:38 AM »
In the anonymous poll of tour pros out this week (in one of the magazines), over 60% answered 'no' to the question of whether everyone in the top 125 is capable of winning a major.
Made me think: yes, modern equipment as an equalizer, but how about 'character' - and the ability to deal with pressure.
Imagine WWII vet Lloyd Mangrum coming down the stretch of a US Open up against Jason Day, Justin Thomas, Jordan Spieth and Rickie Fowler -- if his cigarette smoke didn't kill them, one dead-eyed stare from across the fairway probably would.
But of course that's nonsense too: I don't know what I'm talking about, and no one else here does either.
It's golf. Bowling aside, no other sport/game has changed less in 80 years in terms of what you need in order to play it at the very highest level. 

PS - had to go look up Mr. Mangrum's stats/life again: won 36 times on tour, and that's with 4-5 years off for the War. When he joined the Army they offered him an assignment as the pro at Fort Meade, but he turned it down -- opting for combat duty instead. Years in Patton's Third Army, fought at Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge -- two Purple Hearts, two Silver and two Bronze stars, he comes back and wins the US Open in '46, leads the tour in earnings in '51 and wins the Vardon Trophy in 51 and 53. Shot a 64 in the opening round at Augusta in 1940 (record stood for 46 years), finished in the top 10 there for 10 straight years, loses to Hogan in the '50 US Open, had a record of 6-2 in Ryder Cup singles.

Swing speed, physical training, better diets, short games etc etc -- all of that is out the window. Does anyone think Lloyd Mangrum wouldn't find a way to win on today's tour?

« Last Edit: November 03, 2019, 09:59:45 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back