• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2019 Masters Thread

Tiger the early favorite for the PGA on FanDuel

according to Tiger's scoreboard, he's behind Jack 20-18; not sure we need to give it much more thought than that
 
In a hypothetical head to head competition between Tiger and Jack in their prime, I'll take Tiger and you dummies can take Jack.
 
Nobody ever has or ever will touch the level Tiger reached at his peak. Even the strongest Nicklaus supporters couldn’t deny that.
 
WRS said:
Nobody ever has or ever will touch the level Tiger reached at his peak. Even the strongest Nicklaus supporters couldn’t deny that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if only Jack could have faced down Vijay, Davis Love III, Rocco Mediate, John Daly, David Toms, and a choke artist like Mickelson.
 
RiskyBusiness said:
Golf is a completely different game than it was 40 years ago. The new guys are much better athletes, but it is impossible to tell if they are better golfers. Statistics mean nothing in a world where there has been so much evolution in equipment. The ball travels so much farther and with so much consistency now. Spin is so much easier to control.

Golf courses maintenance has also changed dramatically and information available on the course that we take for granted was not available when Nicklaus and Palmer were knocking it around. Yardage books are precise and players have maps that explain the greens to them.

The result is that equipment manufacturers have made it easier for above average players to compete against the best players. Players can bomb it so far that mistakes are overcome by hitting wedges into greens instead of five irons.

Even the greens at Augusta are completely different. They were Bermuda greens until around 1980. Back then you had to hit putts harder and it was a little more difficult to hit the perfect putt. With new truer greens, it is a lot easier to make birdies, but the speed puts a lot more stress on distance control.

Nicklaus and Tiger are similar in their approaches to the sport and both are/were so much better than their competition because of both talent and their mental preparation.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that too. Tiger and Jack definitely have a lot of similarities. Number 1, their greatest advantage over the competition wasn't physical, it was mental. There is a dimension in their brains when it comes to golf, I just don't think the other guys have. Something like not aiming at the flag on the 12th on Sunday sounds simple, but how many guys other than Jack and Tiger have had the discipline to do it. That decision won the tournament for Tiger yesterday more than any other shot he it I think. Jack and Tiger are also maybe the 2 best iron players to ever play the game and are also maybe the 2 best clutch putters to ever play the game. Jack was a much better driver of the golf ball than Tiger, Jack's combination of length and accuracy was a huge advantage for him. Tiger's short game is much better than Jack's ever was, of course Jack didn't need to lean on his as often, but other than the chipping yips he went through, Tiger's short game is incredible. The one other major difference is off the course where Jack's life outside of golf has been much more stable than Tiger's.

Nicklaus is my all-time favorite athlete and because of that bias, until Tiger reaches 18, Nicklaus is the man to me. However, I really think it's hard to put one over the other. Tiger has played the game in stretches better than anyone ever has. The one thing he didn't have until yesterday was longevity, now he has won a major in 3 different decades. I'm no Tiger fan, but I can't take anything away from the guy, he's incredible.
 
Can’t believe he didn’t list David Duval.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I was thinking about that too. Tiger and Jack definitely have a lot of similarities. Number 1, their greatest advantage over the competition wasn't physical, it was mental. There is a dimension in their brains when it comes to golf, I just don't think the other guys have. Something like not aiming at the flag on the 12th on Sunday sounds simple, but how many guys other than Jack and Tiger have had the discipline to do it. That decision won the tournament for Tiger yesterday more than any other shot he it I think. Jack and Tiger are also maybe the 2 best iron players to ever play the game and are also maybe the 2 best clutch putters to ever play the game. Jack was a much better driver of the golf ball than Tiger, Jack's combination of length and accuracy was a huge advantage for him. Tiger's short game is much better than Jack's ever was, of course Jack didn't need to lean on his as often, but other than the chipping yips he went through, Tiger's short game is incredible. The one other major difference is off the course where Jack's life outside of golf has been much more stable than Tiger's.

Nicklaus is my all-time favorite athlete and because of that bias, until Tiger reaches 18, Nicklaus is the man to me. However, I really think it's hard to put one over the other. Tiger has played the game in stretches better than anyone ever has. The one thing he didn't have until yesterday was longevity, now he has won a major in 3 different decades. I'm no Tiger fan, but I can't take anything away from the guy, he's incredible.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with all of this.

As others have pointed out, direct comparisons are impossible across eras. Who knows what Jack could have done with today's equipment, today's hard and fast courses, and the fitness regimens today's golfers are using? He might have been hitting the ball 375 yds on the reg!
 
scooter84 said:
Pretty much agree with all of this.

As others have pointed out, direct comparisons are impossible across eras. Who knows what Jack could have done with today's equipment, today's hard and fast courses, and the fitness regimens today's golfers are using? He might have been hitting the ball 375 yds on the reg!
Click to expand...

Obviously it's natural for people to want to compare the greatest of all time in any sport, but really the best thing you can do is appreciate them for what they did in their era. Comparisons aren't really fair. Look at Babe Ruth, if he played baseball today in the same shape as he was back then would he have been as good or even made it to the major leagues? However, if Babe Ruth had played today his physical shape, training, etc. would all be modern day to get everything he had out of the natural ability he had to put the bat on the ball. He may have been just as good, better or maybe not as good in today's game, we'll never know.
 
Well there wasn’t anyone facing him down when he won the 2000 US Open by 15 shots as the only player to finish under par.
 
It's pretty much impossible to compare dominance directly between eras, it's all going to be relative. If you dropped a struggling Web.com player of today into Jack's era, he'd instantly be a top 50 player regardless of equipment. There's just so much more money, so many better players, and such a global focus on golf now that you can't escape the numbers game. Just go read up on some sample tourneys in the 70's if you have any doubt. Look at the 1975 Players where Nicklaus was trying to defend his title. Only 3 players broke par, he lost by 17 strokes but STILL notched a top 20 finish, and anyone out of the top 20 made less than $2,000. The PGA winner was over par in '68, '72, '76 - that's basically unimaginable now on anything other than the hardest tracks in the world ticked up beyond belief. Those guys were barely breaking 80 in final rounds and still posting top 10's in freaking majors. There were only 2 rounds in the top 50 yesterday over 75. It's just a different world now.

Did Nicklaus have a tougher set of elite players to fend off? Probably. If you did drop a bunch of the Web.com level guys would he still have beaten them? Maybe. At the top of their games, was Tiger's objective quality of play better than Nicklaus? Of course. Does that mean that if you put them together in the same era that Nicklaus wouldn't have risen to that level of challenge? No. There's an interesting discussion to be had about their levels of dominance and how they compare, but misrepresenting the differences in the tour between the eras just reeks of old man nonsense.
 
DCDeac said:
It's pretty much impossible to compare dominance directly between eras, it's all going to be relative. If you dropped a struggling Web.com player of today into Jack's era, he'd instantly be a top 50 player regardless of equipment. There's just so much more money, so many better players, and such a global focus on golf now that you can't escape the numbers game. Just go read up on some sample tourneys in the 70's if you have any doubt. Look at the 1975 Players where Nicklaus was trying to defend his title. Only 3 players broke par, he lost by 17 strokes but STILL notched a top 20 finish, and anyone out of the top 20 made less than $2,000. The PGA winner was over par in '68, '72, '76 - that's basically unimaginable now on anything other than the hardest tracks in the world ticked up beyond belief. Those guys were barely breaking 80 in final rounds and still posting top 10's in freaking majors. There were only 2 rounds in the top 50 yesterday over 75. It's just a different world now.

Did Nicklaus have a tougher set of elite players to fend off? Probably. If you did drop a bunch of the Web.com level guys would he still have beaten them? Maybe. At the top of their games, was Tiger's objective quality of play better than Nicklaus? Of course. Does that mean that if you put them together in the same era that Nicklaus wouldn't have risen to that level of challenge? No. There's an interesting discussion to be had about their levels of dominance and how they compare, but misrepresenting the differences in the tour between the eras just reeks of old man nonsense.
Click to expand...

If you put together a list of the top 10 golfers of all time other than Tiger and Jack, Nicklaus played against a lot on that list. In my opinion, Mickelson is the only guy on that list that Tiger has really played against. However, no doubt the fields are deeper now. The difference between the #1 golfer in the world and the number #200 in the world is really not that much, especially when you compare it to a sport like tennis.

Like I said, I'm no Tiger fan, but the generation we're seeing now owe a lot to him. Not just the money, but just setting the bar so high. If you look at the era between Jack and Tiger, the big names in golf were Norman, Couples, Love III, maybe throw Nick Price in there. The majors won were Norman 2, Couples 1, Love III 1, and Price 3. Think about how big a name in golf Fred Couples is and he has just 1 major. Seemed like if a guy got a major or 2, they were set. Not saying that didn't want to win more, but the top guys then didn't win that many. Now, you got really young guys like Spieth with 3 already, Keopka with 3 already, McIlroy with 4 already. I think Tiger changed the tune from "hey I've got a major or 2, I'm good," to "I'm going to try to win abunch of these things.
 
Different Tiger vs Jack debate - if you were going to win 15/18 majors, which resume of courses would you pick?


Augusta National (5)
St Andrews (2)
Pebble Beach

Medinah (2)
Bethpage Black
Torrey Pines
Valhalla
Southern Hills
Royal Liverpool

vs

Augusta National (6)
St Andrews (2)
Pebble Beach

Baltusrol (2)
Oakmont
Oak Hill
Canterbury
Firestone
BallenIsles
Dallas Athletic Club
Muirfield
 
Comparing players in most any sport across generations is not possible. FB players are much bigger and faster today, baseball players are much better athletes now and it is more specialized, Golfers equipment is not in the same league today as 40 years ago nor is the swing aids available today, Tennis rackets are much better, lighter and a player can create much more power than a Rod Laver could, Hockey is way more skilled today and the goalies are exponentially better, Basketball players are much bigger, faster, athletic, stronger and skilled that those of yesteryear. There are great players in all sports of every generation and I choose to measure them by the comparable competition that they had at the time but that is just me. Perhaps the best way to phrase it is that a particular player was the greatest in their time and leave it there
 
Last edited:
sportsnut said:
Comparing players in most any sport across generations is not possible. FB players are much bigger and faster today, baseball players are much better athletes now and it is more specialized, Golfers equipment is not in the same league today as 40 years ago nor is the swing aids available today, Tennis rackets are much better, lighter and a player can create much more power than a Rod Laver could, Hockey is way more skilled today and the goalies are exponentially better, Basketball players are much bigger, faster, athletic, stronger and skilled that those of yesteryear. There are great players in all sports of every generation and I choose to measure them by the comparable competition that they had at the time but that is just me. Perhaps the best way to phrase it is that a particular player was the greatest in their time and leave it there
Click to expand...

I love watching some of the older college football games on ESPN-Classic from the 70's-80's. When they would give the starting lineups they would normally give the weights of the O-line and they were typically in the 240-250 pound range back then, with a 270 pounder eliciting "he's a big'un" from Keith Jackson.
 
Real question we should be asking ourselves is if Tiger is the most iconic sports figure in the history of sport? I think I would put him at two, behind Jordan and slightly ahead of Brady and Ali.
 
DCDeac said:
It's pretty much impossible to compare dominance directly between eras, it's all going to be relative. If you dropped a struggling Web.com player of today into Jack's era, he'd instantly be a top 50 player regardless of equipment. There's just so much more money, so many better players, and such a global focus on golf now that you can't escape the numbers game. Just go read up on some sample tourneys in the 70's if you have any doubt. Look at the 1975 Players where Nicklaus was trying to defend his title. Only 3 players broke par, he lost by 17 strokes but STILL notched a top 20 finish, and anyone out of the top 20 made less than $2,000. The PGA winner was over par in '68, '72, '76 - that's basically unimaginable now on anything other than the hardest tracks in the world ticked up beyond belief. Those guys were barely breaking 80 in final rounds and still posting top 10's in freaking majors. There were only 2 rounds in the top 50 yesterday over 75. It's just a different world now.

Did Nicklaus have a tougher set of elite players to fend off? Probably. If you did drop a bunch of the Web.com level guys would he still have beaten them? Maybe. At the top of their games, was Tiger's objective quality of play better than Nicklaus? Of course. Does that mean that if you put them together in the same era that Nicklaus wouldn't have risen to that level of challenge? No. There's an interesting discussion to be had about their levels of dominance and how they compare, but misrepresenting the differences in the tour between the eras just reeks of old man nonsense.
Click to expand...

How did you arrive at that conclusion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top