Tiger is the Greatest

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 17, 2005, 3:28 pm

Masters - 1st
US Open - 2nd
British Open - 1st

When Tiger is playing his best, no one can hang with him. It is onyl when he is off his game that others have a chance to win.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 19, 2005, 3:42 am

It must suck being on so many 'Ignore' lists!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 19, 2005, 10:46 am

Not really. The people who are so close minded to ignore me are the ones I would rather not converse with anyway.

Of course, there really isn't anything for anyone to say. Tiger is the greatest golfer of all time. When Jack played he didn't have the quality competition or the amount of those quality players. Tiger would have destroyed Jack.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 19, 2005, 11:07 am

Whoa whoa whoa.....you went a tad insane there. Tiger is a great golfer, but Nicklaud would have equalled him easily and most likely whipped his ass if they were in the same era. Nicklaus definitely had much tougher competition and MUCH MUCH tougher elements to deal with.

First, courses today are in such perfect shape that you just do not see the field get bad lies or problems on the green. In nicklaus' day, the fairwasy were shaggier, bumpier, and had divots all over. The greens were very shaggy and did not have that perfect true roll you see now.

Second, Nicklaus played when u-grooves were illegal and woods were made of wood. If he had the equipment Tiger has in his prime, I can't even imagine what he would have shot. Even Tiger will tell you that Jack was the best golfer who ever lived (and that may not even be true as Bobby Jones was quite simply amazing).

Anyone who plays golf can tell you that the length of today's balls and drivers make the courses play so much easier. The difference between hitting a wedge versus a 5 iron into a green is such a huge factor in scoring.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 19, 2005, 11:18 am

LOL, I can't beleive you said Tiger is better than Jack.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 19, 2005, 11:33 am

the equipment is irrelevant. All of Tiger's competition can play with the same equipment he does - or better, wasnt there a lot of crap about how Tiger's Nike driver sucked, but he was financially compelled to use it?

i'm not a golfer, and i know Kilmoll knows his shit about golf, but i think at this point, one could argue that the competition is more athletic and more disciplined than ever. There is more analysis and technology to assist Tiger's competition (as well as himself) than ever before, and yet he still is a class by himself against all of that.

so i dont think it is an outrageous claim at all. Tiger won his 10th major at age 30. Nicklaus did so at age 32.

Momopi · Post by **Momopi** » July 19, 2005, 11:46 am

Does anyone really even care about golf when football season is coming up soon?

noel · Post by **noel** » July 19, 2005, 12:03 pm

Momopi wrote:Does anyone really even care about golf when football season is coming up soon?

Lots of people care about different sports, all the time.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 19, 2005, 12:12 pm

Voronwë wrote:the equipment is irrelevant. All of Tiger's competition can play with the same equipment he does - or better, wasnt there a lot of crap about how Tiger's Nike driver sucked, but he was financially compelled to use it?

i'm not a golfer, and i know Kilmoll knows his shit about golf, but i think at this point, one could argue that the competition is more athletic and more disciplined than ever. There is more analysis and technology to assist Tiger's competition (as well as himself) than ever before, and yet he still is a class by himself against all of that.

so i dont think it is an outrageous claim at all. Tiger won his 10th major at age 30. Nicklaus did so at age 32.

That is because Nicklaus' competition was actually better. If Tiger was as good as people really thought, he would shatter every course record. He doesn't and won't. The difference in equipment between now and in Nicklaus' prime would be like allowing major leaguers of today to use aluminum bats versus the wood bats of players from the 60's-80's. With that technology, one would assume that you would see disparaging numbers and results between the two eras.

Golf courses have begun lengthening to combat the advantages Tiger and the other golfers of today have with their equipment. What kind of score do you think Tiger would shoot right now if he had to pick up a mismatched set of irons from the early 70's and use a blade putter and persimmon woods? He sure as hell would not be shooting anything near what he shoots with the clubs currently produced for him.

BTW......Tiger does not have to use anything produced from Nike Golf. He switched back over to his Titleist driver last year because the Nike driver sucked. He could toss them all in the trash and still get his $40 million.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 19, 2005, 12:25 pm

I did a bit of research on this years ago and found that Woods has roughly a 68 shot average while Nicklaus had a 69-70 shot average. Adding to that, today's greens are smoother, courses have more traps (tougher ones too) and the equipment is a lot better.

Knowing all that, I would have to say Nicklaus is the better golfer. However, its too hard to tell and I think it just comes down to personal opinion. It would be one hell of a match to see them both in their prime though

miir · Post by **miir** » July 19, 2005, 1:18 pm

Tiger would have destroyed Jack.

lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

no really

lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

miir · Post by **miir** » July 19, 2005, 1:26 pm

If Niklaus in his prime, had the equipment and technology that is available now he would make Tiger Woods look like a hack.

Not saying that Woods is a hack... he's certainly the best of the current crop of professional golfers.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 19, 2005, 1:35 pm

In many sports... and golf is no exception, it's difficult to compare eras, and in most cases, you're better off not doing so.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 19, 2005, 3:31 pm

People give too much cedit to past players. As if they are somehow better because they were around in the beginning. Todays golfer is usually an athlete. They are bigger, stronger, healthier. Todays competition is much larger and better.

No one but the rich few golfed back then. Now, you have a much wider array of people getting into golf.

It is impossible to"truly" argue two different generations of players, teams, etc. But, in my opinion...Tiger would have beaten Jack many many times.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » July 19, 2005, 3:52 pm

I'm not about to argue the fact that people tend to over-emphasize the greatness of past athletes but at the same time you do have to consider the evolution of technology and the sport itself. The fact of the matter is today's clubs are far superior to what was used 30 years ago and the courses are in overall better condition. When you see that their average scores per round aren't that far apart (as per Lynks) and they number of major victories (as per Voro), you can make that argument either way.

I don't think its disputed that Tiger is the dominant golfer of today, just like Nicklaus was the dominant golfer of his era. But making the claim that either one is "the greatest of all time" is open to dispute because the comparasons will always be subjective on the influences affecting them and their peers.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 19, 2005, 3:53 pm

The courses have been changed by redesign and lengthening to even out the new equipment, etc.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 19, 2005, 4:15 pm

I think Tiger would get more action in prison than Jack would.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 19, 2005, 4:18 pm

Thats only cause he keeps is balls clean before he uses them.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 19, 2005, 4:22 pm

Tiger has an ability to shorten a course that nobody has EVER been able to match consistently. Even with Nicklaus' short game as it was in his prime, I don't know that he could compete with that.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 19, 2005, 5:10 pm

Should Tiger Woods be forced to donate at a sperm bank with the intent of artificially inseminating Michelle Wie in order to create super golf babies to secure the future of American dominance in the PGA?

Yes or no?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 19, 2005, 5:19 pm

People give too much cedit to past players. As if they are somehow better because they were around in the beginning. Todays golfer is usually an athlete. They are bigger, stronger, healthier. Todays competition is much larger and better.

Cripes, could you imagine if Jack Nicklaus was actually an athlete and trained, took his athlete vitamins, used athlete approved hi tech designed space-age clubs and used a GPS to get precise distances....yeah I know they are not allowed during the actual rounds but they are used extensively when the golfers and caddies do their walkthroughs..... He would be like some sort of Ubergolfspieler.

But I guess he wasn't an athlete... and Tiger shoots only marginally better (roughly 1 stroke) than him on the same courses.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 19, 2005, 5:27 pm

I'm guessing, the courses arent the same now as when Nicklaus was in his prime, so the comparison is invalid. Even Augusta National has changed in response to modern technology and fitness. Maybe St. Andrews hasn't changed the way they cut the greens or place the traps, but i bet they have from 30 years ago. I would suggest that less austere settings have adapted to the changing game much more dramatically. The idea is to keep par at 72, and the only way to do this as players improve over time (and they do in every other sport) is to make the courses more challenging.

and a substantial number of the courses that events are played on didnt exist 30 years ago.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 19, 2005, 5:38 pm

Voronwë wrote:and a substantial number of the courses that events are played on didnt exist 30 years ago.

A lot of those places have holes that would have been considered "unplayable" 20-30 years ago too. "A 600 yard par 5? Nobody will ever be able to make GIR!"

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » July 19, 2005, 7:45 pm

Kinda dumb comparing two of the greatest golfers ever. Nicholas was the Tiger of his era and if you think there were no players around during his time, then stop talking about golf, you know nothing. Palmer, Player, Rodriguez to name a few of the bigger names.

Did you also not notice that Jack missed this cut by just 2 strokes ahead, well ahead,of a number of this generations "superior" golfers. He shot even par the second day I believe.

When a person dominates their sport in their era it is probably safe to say that they probably would have dominated another era. I think a Nicholas era Tiger would still be as dominate as he is today. Nicholas in this era would be every bit as long as Tiger and would dominate as well.

Both are amazing golfers and I enjoyed watching both this past week. Nicholas was a great champion and Tiger is a great champion. They obviously respect each others talents and that says more then any of us can say about the subject.