Questions about the greatest of all time

[Playaway]

[quote name='coolmonk' timestamp='1418334842' post='10580097']
So, if Tiger gets 18 majors does he surpass Nicklaus as the GOAT? Or will Tiger haters say he needs 19?

No really, this is a serious question.
[/quote]

If Tiger gets to 18 there will still be a debate but more folks will give the nod to Tiger than are now.

My question is, what happens if this is it for Tiger Woods . . . . . . as in no more majors?

Where is he thought of THEN?

[bscinstnct]

So, if Tiger gets 18 majors does he surpass Nicklaus as the GOAT? Or will Tiger haters say he needs 19?

 

No really, this is a serious question.

 

If Tiger gets to 18 there will still be a debate but more folks will give the nod to Tiger than are now.

 

My question is, what happens if this is it for Tiger Woods . . . . . . as in no more majors?

 

Where is he thought of THEN?

 

4 Majors? TW wins *one* and this place will

 

[JustTheTips]

[quote name='treyerikhayden' timestamp='1418240686' post='10573581']
The Tiger-Jack debate is the greatest career vs greatest player debate. It's like Elway vs Marino. Marino had more talent than anyone and lived up to it, but Elway got the rings... from '99 to '09, Tiger had to play the greatest golf that's ever been played. But Nicklaus knew his game better than anyone, and putted about as well as Tiger, stayed healthy, and as such had the greatest career of all-time. 56 top fives in the majors! WOW
[/quote]

And he only won 1/3 of them. Guy must have been a horrible closer:). Nickalaus's longevity was outstanding. They have been a lot of golfers that have had hot 10 years (Tiger 1999-2008, Watson 1975-84, Hogan 46-55) that in the ballpark of what Jack did. None of them having another 10 years of results to go with them.

[Exist]

Pointless debate. Opinions are like a**eholes..... everyone's got one and IMO entitled to it.

[imakaveli]

[quote name='LackOfFrigginTalent' timestamp='1418317012' post='10578585']
[quote name='Marand' timestamp='1418312823' post='10578141']
[quote name='imakaveli' timestamp='1418291835' post='10577221']
[quote name='LackOfFrigginTalent' timestamp='1418278751' post='10576965']
If they played each other in their primes, Tiger wins.
[/quote]

If Van De Velde had used a PW at Carnoustie he would have been the Champion Golfer of the Year
[/quote]

He might have gone on to a Van De Velde Slam. And had Phil used a five iron on the 18th at Winged Foot he would have a career slam and 3/4 on the way to his own Mickelson Slam. Scott Hoch was thisclose to a Green Coat once upon a time.
[/quote]

Sorry to break it to you guys but sports and humans evolve. Sure some of the Green Bay Packers teams from the 1960's were good, but sadly they would get demolished by today's athletes.
[/quote]

18 > 14, the rest is all chit chat

[Dave230]

For best peak, what about Bobby Jones? He dominated 1923-30, he beat everyone he came up against, only player to win the Grand Slam of his time. He won 7 pro majors and 6 amateur majors by age 28. He was also supposed to be one of the smoothest ball-strikers ever. And he had a personality that transcended golf.

[BillyZ2]

[quote name='coolmonk' timestamp='1418334842' post='10580097']
So, if Tiger gets 18 majors does he surpass Nicklaus as the GOAT? Or will Tiger haters say he needs 19?

No really, this is a serious question.
[/quote]Tiger will be fortunate to win another Web.com tournament, let alone a major!

[KYMAR]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1418387117' post='10582495']
For best peak, what about Bobby Jones? He dominated 1923-30, he beat everyone he came up against, only player to win the Grand Slam of his time. He won 7 pro majors and 6 amateur majors by age 28. He was also supposed to be one of the smoothest ball-strikers ever. And he had a personality that transcended golf.
[/quote]

Cases can be made for a handful of guys other than Jack or Tiger. Jones, Hogan, Nelson. For the most part though, these arguments are easily set aside. Jones in essence, took himself out of the conversation by hanging up the plus 4's at such a young age.

This has been a two horse race for the last 10 years. I'm as surprised (and disappointed and a little pissed off actually) as anybody that this argument wasn't settled definitively over that time. 19 majors has always been the benchmark Tiger himself has set in order to be considered the G.O.A.T. that has not changed simply because he's no longer on a trajectory to obtain the record (smash it) like he was when he hobbled off Torrey Pines trophy in hand.

Majors separate. During that week, that season and over a career. An argument can be made that he is still the goat but it's an unconvincing one when he himself doesn't agree with it.

Looking forward to this topic again in 8-10 weeks.

[imakaveli]

[quote name='DavePelz4' timestamp='1418317250' post='10578597']
It's JonesScott. Just read his posts.
[/quote]

Avatar choice is improving though

[Lennon Mccartney]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1418387117' post='10582495']
For best peak, what about Bobby Jones? He dominated 1923-30, he beat everyone he came up against, only player to win the Grand Slam of his time. He won 7 pro majors and 6 amateur majors by age 28. He was also supposed to be one of the smoothest ball-strikers ever. And he had a personality that transcended golf.
[/quote]
i wonder what Tiger would have done if he played all the amatuers from 1994-2005...something tells me he could have made a little noise in those

[Dave230]

[quote name='Lennon Mccartney' timestamp='1418393725' post='10582865']
[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1418387117' post='10582495']
For best peak, what about Bobby Jones? He dominated 1923-30, he beat everyone he came up against, only player to win the Grand Slam of his time. He won 7 pro majors and 6 amateur majors by age 28. He was also supposed to be one of the smoothest ball-strikers ever. And he had a personality that transcended golf.
[/quote]
i wonder what Tiger would have done if he played all the amatuers from 1994-2005...something tells me he could have made a little noise in those
[/quote]

Yeah he would have but amateur golf was more relevant in Jones' day whereas nowadays basically everyone turns pro.

He was actually more successful in professional events anyway, he won 7 of 11 professional majors he entered from 1923 onwards. He couldn't play in the PGA and the Masters obviously didn't exist.

Tiger won 7 from 11 from 1999-2002 alright. Although Hogan from 1948-53 won 8 in 11 which is probably the best run. He was kinda robbed the professional Grand Slam by the state of travel in his time.

[treyerikhayden]

With all due respect to Mr. Jones, putting him in this conversation is like putting Don Hutson in the Randy Moss-Jerry Rice convo. Just a different game...

[bscinstnct]

Jack is the greatest.

TW is the best to ever tee it up.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1418408842' post='10583967']
Jack is the greatest.

TW is the best to ever tee it up.
[/quote]

I have no idea what this means

I fully understand what you're saying.

[bscinstnct]

Jack is the greatest.

 

TW is the best to ever tee it up.

 

I have no idea what this means

 

I fully understand what you're saying.

 

 

I knew you wouldn't get it.

 

But happy that you understand ; )

 

[Guia]

In Jones day there was limited number of golfers, it was a sport for the rich. Very few professionals and even they were not accepted by the rich in the Country Clubs. Jones has an impressive record but competition was very limited.

[nochct1]

Jack won 3 majors and 5 tournaments after he turned 39 (1979). Up to that point he had 68 wins and 15 majors. At the same point in his career Tiger is at 14 majors and 79 wins (we won't count US amateurs, even though Jack did until at least 1986).

Why does everyone discount the win advantage? And it's not as though they are easy events that Tiger is winning. Most of the big events draw the best players from around the world, and Tiger still wins against those fields (which are as strong as most majors).

Was the British Open Field in the 60s and 70s even as strong as the Fedex fields today?

[joey2aces]

[quote name='Tom Gski' timestamp='1418387680' post='10582525']
[quote name='coolmonk' timestamp='1418334842' post='10580097']
So, if Tiger gets 18 majors does he surpass Nicklaus as the GOAT? Or will Tiger haters say he needs 19?

No really, this is a serious question.
[/quote]Tiger will be fortunate to win another Web.com tournament, let alone a major!
[/quote]

I hear he is going after J Daly and his Beko Classic title in 2015

[Awsi Dooger]

[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1418273621' post='10576703']I am a Nicklaus fan but he had gaps in his game, but not many.[/quote]

I'm old enough to have followed Nicklaus' career from the late '60s forth. I agree he had more holes in his game than Tiger. Sloppy bogeys that often made no sense. Costly.

He never had a weakness so ongoing and severe as Tiger's recent driving. Jack may have hit mediocre wedges and chips but the commentators weren't mocking him prior to the shot, anticipating it would finish anywhere except near the hole. That's been the case with Tiger, and actually hitting the fairway.

Since it's happened later in Tiger's career the focus is greater and memories fresher, especially given the pursuit of 18. Nobody would really care if he had a stretch like this a decade ago and overcame it. I still think there's a big chance he reaches 19+ and the recent years are a comparative blip. Just ammo for the Bar Stool types to proclaim he would have nabbed 30+ majors otherwise.

Tiger needs to get to 18. Fairly or unfairly. Right now there is plenty of media chatter that Peyton Manning is perhaps the greatest quarterback ever, despite only one Super Bowl win. Peyton Manning is our focus now. Look at all the swell passes. Great decision making, Meanwhile, if he finishes with only one championship the memories fade and spotlight eventually shifts to the greats of that era, and back onto the all-time guys who combined excellence with titles, like Joe Montana. Peyton naturally drops. Same with the Lebron and Jordan debate. Right now Charles Barkley and others are emphasizing that Lebron doesn't need to reach 6 titles to surpass Jordan's legacy. Hogwash. It would be true within a short span, if Lebron is championed for bringing a title or two to Cleveland.

But eventually the bottom line perspective trumps all, with 6 > 4. Tiger faces the same.

[rony]

[quote name='LackOfFrigginTalent' timestamp='1418317012' post='10578585']
[quote name='Marand' timestamp='1418312823' post='10578141']
[quote name='imakaveli' timestamp='1418291835' post='10577221']
[quote name='LackOfFrigginTalent' timestamp='1418278751' post='10576965']
If they played each other in their primes, Tiger wins.
[/quote]

If Van De Velde had used a PW at Carnoustie he would have been the Champion Golfer of the Year
[/quote]

He might have gone on to a Van De Velde Slam. And had Phil used a five iron on the 18th at Winged Foot he would have a career slam and 3/4 on the way to his own Mickelson Slam. Scott Hoch was thisclose to a Green Coat once upon a time.
[/quote]

Sorry to break it to you guys but sports and humans evolve. Sure some of the Green Bay Packers teams from the 1960's were good, but sadly they would get demolished by today's athletes.
[/quote]

Good Post! This says it all when you try to compare athletes from a different era .

[KYMAR]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1418411703' post='10584235']
Jack won 3 majors and 5 tournaments after he turned 39 (1979). Up to that point he had 68 wins and 15 majors. At the same point in his career Tiger is at 14 majors and 79 wins (we won't count US amateurs, even though Jack did until at least 1986).

Why does everyone discount the win advantage? And it's not as though they are easy events that Tiger is winning. Most of the big events draw the best players from around the world, and Tiger still wins against those fields (which are as strong as most majors).

Was the British Open Field in the 60s and 70s even as strong as the Fedex fields today?
[/quote]

Who is discounting the overall win total?

[Bad9]

I don't know if can be considered GOAT (yet) but Tiger certainly dominated his peers in professional golf much more than anyone else ever did.

[nochct1]

[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1418412278' post='10584297']
[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1418273621' post='10576703']I am a Nicklaus fan but he had gaps in his game, but not many.[/quote]

I'm old enough to have followed Nicklaus' career from the late '60s forth. I agree he had more holes in his game than Tiger. Sloppy bogeys that often made no sense. Costly.

He never had a weakness so ongoing and severe as Tiger's recent driving. Jack may have hit mediocre wedges and chips but the commentators weren't mocking him prior to the shot, anticipating it would finish anywhere except near the hole. That's been the case with Tiger, and actually hitting the fairway.

Since it's happened later in Tiger's career the focus is greater and memories fresher, especially given the pursuit of 18. Nobody would really care if he had a stretch like this a decade ago and overcame it. I still think there's a big chance he reaches 19+ and the recent years are a comparative blip. Just ammo for the Bar Stool types to proclaim he would have nabbed 30+ majors otherwise.

Tiger needs to get to 18. Fairly or unfairly. Right now there is plenty of media chatter that Peyton Manning is perhaps the greatest quarterback ever, despite only one Super Bowl win. Peyton Manning is our focus now. Look at all the swell passes. Great decision making, Meanwhile, if he finishes with only one championship the memories fade and spotlight eventually shifts to the greats of that era, and back onto the all-time guys who combined excellence with titles, like Joe Montana. Peyton naturally drops. Same with the Lebron and Jordan debate. Right now Charles Barkley and others are emphasizing that Lebron doesn't need to reach 6 titles to surpass Jordan's legacy. Hogwash. It would be true within a short span, if Lebron is championed for bringing a title or two to Cleveland.

But eventually the bottom line perspective trumps all, with 6 > 4. Tiger faces the same.
[/quote]

I always like reading your posts, they're always well informed and you obviously know a lot about sports.

It's interesting that you being up television and the mocking of Tiger's driving. Television coverage was obviously much smaller in Jack's time, but media overall was different. Television personalities have to sell themselves in order to draw viewers as well as web traffic. Tiger has always struggled w the driver, but in today's world, the analysis and criticism has to exist in order to generate revenue. Even in 2013 when Tiger won 5 times, Chamblee still spent a ton of time over analyzing Tiger.
Early in his career Tiger could have an off week while still winning and people would praise him. Now he has one part of his game that's off and the taking heads spend hours and hours criticizing him, even when he wins.

[BillyZ2]

[quote name='KYMAR' timestamp='1418408961' post='10583969']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1418408842' post='10583967']
Jack is the greatest.

TW is the best to ever tee it up.
[/quote]

I have no idea what this means

I fully understand what you're saying.
[/quote]LOL, well said.

[BillyZ2]

[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1418412278' post='10584297']
[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1418273621' post='10576703']I am a Nicklaus fan but he had gaps in his game, but not many.[/quote]

I'm old enough to have followed Nicklaus' career from the late '60s forth. I agree he had more holes in his game than Tiger. Sloppy bogeys that often made no sense. Costly.

He never had a weakness so ongoing and severe as Tiger's recent driving. Jack may have hit mediocre wedges and chips but the commentators weren't mocking him prior to the shot, anticipating it would finish anywhere except near the hole. That's been the case with Tiger, and actually hitting the fairway.

Since it's happened later in Tiger's career the focus is greater and memories fresher, especially given the pursuit of 18. Nobody would really care if he had a stretch like this a decade ago and overcame it. I still think there's a big chance he reaches 19+ and the recent years are a comparative blip. Just ammo for the Bar Stool types to proclaim he would have nabbed 30+ majors otherwise.

Tiger needs to get to 18. Fairly or unfairly. Right now there is plenty of media chatter that Peyton Manning is perhaps the greatest quarterback ever, despite only one Super Bowl win. Peyton Manning is our focus now. Look at all the swell passes. Great decision making, Meanwhile, if he finishes with only one championship the memories fade and spotlight eventually shifts to the greats of that era, and back onto the all-time guys who combined excellence with titles, like Joe Montana. Peyton naturally drops. Same with the Lebron and Jordan debate. Right now Charles Barkley and others are emphasizing that Lebron doesn't need to reach 6 titles to surpass Jordan's legacy. Hogwash. It would be true within a short span, if Lebron is championed for bringing a title or two to Cleveland.

But eventually the bottom line perspective trumps all, with 6 > 4. Tiger faces the same.
[/quote]Has Cleveland ever won a championship in any major sport? That would be big if Lebron brought one to Cleveland!

[KYMAR]

[quote name='Tom Gski' timestamp='1418422508' post='10585237']
[quote name='Awsi Dooger' timestamp='1418412278' post='10584297']
[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1418273621' post='10576703']I am a Nicklaus fan but he had gaps in his game, but not many.[/quote]

I'm old enough to have followed Nicklaus' career from the late '60s forth. I agree he had more holes in his game than Tiger. Sloppy bogeys that often made no sense. Costly.

He never had a weakness so ongoing and severe as Tiger's recent driving. Jack may have hit mediocre wedges and chips but the commentators weren't mocking him prior to the shot, anticipating it would finish anywhere except near the hole. That's been the case with Tiger, and actually hitting the fairway.

Since it's happened later in Tiger's career the focus is greater and memories fresher, especially given the pursuit of 18. Nobody would really care if he had a stretch like this a decade ago and overcame it. I still think there's a big chance he reaches 19+ and the recent years are a comparative blip. Just ammo for the Bar Stool types to proclaim he would have nabbed 30+ majors otherwise.

Tiger needs to get to 18. Fairly or unfairly. Right now there is plenty of media chatter that Peyton Manning is perhaps the greatest quarterback ever, despite only one Super Bowl win. Peyton Manning is our focus now. Look at all the swell passes. Great decision making, Meanwhile, if he finishes with only one championship the memories fade and spotlight eventually shifts to the greats of that era, and back onto the all-time guys who combined excellence with titles, like Joe Montana. Peyton naturally drops. Same with the Lebron and Jordan debate. Right now Charles Barkley and others are emphasizing that Lebron doesn't need to reach 6 titles to surpass Jordan's legacy. Hogwash. It would be true within a short span, if Lebron is championed for bringing a title or two to Cleveland.

But eventually the bottom line perspective trumps all, with 6 > 4. Tiger faces the same.
[/quote]Has Cleveland ever won a championship in any major sport? That would be big if Lebron brought one to Cleveland!
[/quote]

The browns and Indians both! Eleventy billion years ago though.

Two outs away in the 97 series. I cried so hard. Just stopped the other day in fact.

LBJ has come home! He'll get this city that ring! (PLEASE!!!)

[DavePelz4]

Are you guys forgetting the 1964 Cleveland Browns? The pasted the Giants 27-0 in the championship game. Jim Brown, Leroy Kelly, Paul Warfield, Frank Ryan, Lou the Toe Groza and IIRC, Blanton Collier was the head coach. They were an awesome team.

If you're still feeling bad, realize it's now 106 years for the lovable losers on the north side of Chicago although they're on a nice track now.

[KYMAR]

[quote name='DavePelz4' timestamp='1418425886' post='10585491']
Are you guys forgetting the 1964 Cleveland Browns? The pasted the Giants 27-0 in the championship game. Jim Brown, Leroy Kelly, Paul Warfield, Frank Ryan, Lou the Toe Groza and IIRC, Blanton Collier was the head coach. They were an awesome team.

If you're still feeling bad, realize it's now 106 years for the lovable losers on the north side of Chicago although they're on a nice track now.
[/quote]

True or false Dave. IF Moises Alou makes one little "come On man" gesture instead of losing his flipping mind like a child, Steve Bartmans life doesn't collapse into darkness?

[playa]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1418387117' post='10582495']
For best peak, what about Bobby Jones? He dominated 1923-30, he beat everyone he came up against, only player to win the Grand Slam of his time. He won 7 pro majors and 6 amateur majors by age 28. He was also supposed to be one of the smoothest ball-strikers ever. And he had a personality that transcended golf.
[/quote]
He was very racist in his views, so not sure how that sort of personality transcends anything. Also dominated very weak fields of rich white guys. You can't compare who he beat to the dedcated hungry pros who Hogan, Jack and Tiger dominated. Credit to him for beating who was out in front of him as that's all you can do, but you can't really say his majkrs were the same as later players.

[widow-maker]

I tend to place more importance on the majors because the players themselves place more importance on them. Nicklaus' record in majors is unparalleled. Wins, 2nd's, top 5's... nobody's record compares to his.

I don't think that depth of field means that much when it comes to winning major championships. When it comes down to the back 9 on Sunday, you're competing with the 10 players or so who were playing the best golf for that particular week. All of them are hot and playing their best, hitting the ball well, making putts. The challenge is within yourself because the pressure is so immense. It all comes down to results under intense pressure. The amount of times that Nicklaus put himself into position to win majors is staggering. He played his best when it was required the most. Tiger knows it. Heck, they all know it. It's the reason why 19 is so important to Tiger.