Golden Bear is better than Tiger.

[bradhusker]

I called this back in 2000, when it wasnt wise to do so. Everyone said that Tiger would destroy Jack's record for majors.

Here is a little known fact for ya.

When Tiger started winning majors in 97, golf course design had'nt caught up with the new technology in clubs yet. Even the ball flew 45 to 50 yds further.
So, basically, Tiger ripped off 8 majors before golf course design could catch up.

My debate is simple. Tiger and Jack are in a class by themselves. The rest of the golfers in history dont even come close.
That being said, Tiger was able to take advantage of the fact that he was playing on the same courses as Jack did, BUT, with better weapons. Better technology from the new lighter more powerful materials, to the ball itself which traveled another 40 to 50 yds.

Given this advantage, he had a unique window where he ripped off 8 majors before golf course design caught up with technology.

My take is that without this advantage from roughly 97 thru 2004, Tiger would only be at 8 or 9 majors right now, instead of 14.

And, im pretty sure of this.

[Dinsdale]

Fuck, you're right... none of the other players in the world were using the new technology when Tiger was winning Majors.

Wait... the 97-2000 run was made with "inferior equipment" (as per Phil), and dude used an old stell headed driver with a stell shaft when everyone else was using titanium/graphite.

Yet Tiger still whooped them all.

So, in short... you're point is valid, except it's the exact opposite of valid, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

And you won't be trolling this forum, so tread lightly.

[BSmack]

When Tiger started winning majors in 97, golf course design had'nt caught up with the new technology in clubs yet. Even the ball flew 45 to 50 yds further.
So, basically, Tiger ripped off 8 majors before golf course design could catch up.

That is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Every other player was playing on the same courses and with, as Dins noted, the same or BETTER equipment. What Tiger was doing against the fields he was playing was more like someone boat racing the field with a gutta-percha whilst the others were playing with wound balls.

[bradhusker]

Fuck, you're right... none of the other players in the world were using the new technology when Tiger was winning Majors.

Wait... the 97-2000 run was made with "inferior equipment" (as per Phil), and dude used an old stell headed driver with a stell shaft when everyone else was using titanium/graphite.

Yet Tiger still whooped them all.

So, in short... you're point is valid, except it's the exact opposite of valid, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

And you won't be trolling this forum, so tread lightly.

Dinsdale? I said that Jack and TIger are the ONLY TWO to compare. THEY are IN A CLASS BY THEMSELVES.
SO WHAT I SAID WAS RELEVANT.
Dont bring up everyone else in the field, cause they dont compare to Jack and Tiger. Jack, 18 majors, Tiger 14 majors. Everyone else? Phil 4, Vijay 3 els 3 who else?

YOU want to prop up the whole field and put them in a class with tiger and jack? ARE U INSANE?

SO, now that ive cleared that up, I was correct. If this is about Jack and Tiger, I was RIGHT. Tiger was basically playing on the same courses as Jack, BUT, with a ball that flies 50 yds further, and clubs which were lighter and stronger.
FACTS are stubborn things dins.

[bradhusker]

When Tiger started winning majors in 97, golf course design had'nt caught up with the new technology in clubs yet. Even the ball flew 45 to 50 yds further.
So, basically, Tiger ripped off 8 majors before golf course design could catch up.

That is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Every other player was playing on the same courses and with, as Dins noted, the same or BETTER equipment. What Tiger was doing against the fields he was playing was more like someone boat racing the field with a gutta-percha whilst the others were playing with wound balls.

BSmack, what you just said about "every other [player" HAS NO RELEVANCE. Im only comparing Jack and Tiger, NO ONE ELSE. All the other players in the field are irrelevant, because they suck compared with tiger and jack.

Tell me something? You honestly are trying to include everyone else in the field with Tiger and Jack?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Tiger 14 majors, Jack 18 majors, the field? The closest guy is Phil with 4?
LMFAO.

My whole arguement was that Tiger and Jack are in a class by themselves. SO, I wanted to compare the two best of all time. THEN, you and Dinsdale bring up the rest of the field? WHAT THE FUCK?
How do you compare golfers who arent in the same breath as those two?

That being said, lets get back to my original debate. JACK AND TIGER. Tiger makes his run on the same courses as Jack, BUT, with a ball that flies 50 yds further, and clubs which are lighter and stronger. Once this was realized, golf course design started to reflect this.

I am only comparing Tiger and Jack, You guys laughablly brought up the rest of the field. WHY?
Compared to Tiger and Jack, they suck.
There is a reason why Tiger and Jack are the 2 best of all time, and no other golfer comes close.
My debate is strictly comparing those 2. You got a problem with that?

P S. Even with that advantage that Tiger was lucky to have early on? He still wont break Jack's record.

[Dinsdale]

Tiger 14 majors, Jack 18 majors, the field? The closest guy is Phil with 4?

Uhm... nevermind.

And as far as bringing up "the rest of the field"... who the fuck do you think either player had to beat to win Majors? The "rest of the field," maybe? That same rest of the field who was playing with the same balls and clubs as Jack and Tiger were (actually, as mentioned, Tiger was playing with outdated clubs until he made the Nike deal in 2000, although was playing with the same ProV1x as everyone else).

And you could make a case that Tiger played against deeper fields then Jack did, since that's the nature of the sport (and most other sports).

So, in conclusion, your take has zero merit, and defies all logic.

[BSmack]

Dont bring up everyone else in the field, cause they dont compare to Jack and Tiger. Jack, 18 majors, Tiger 14 majors. Everyone else? Phil 4, Vijay 3 els 3 who else?

Walter Hagen - 11
Gary Player - 9
Ben Hogan - 9
Tom Watson - 8
Arnold Palmer - 7
Sam Snead - 7
Bobby Jones - 7
Harry Vardon - 7

You are a fucking moron.

[bradhusker]

Dont bring up everyone else in the field, cause they dont compare to Jack and Tiger. Jack, 18 majors, Tiger 14 majors. Everyone else? Phil 4, Vijay 3 els 3 who else?

Walter Hagen - 11
Gary Player - 9
Ben Hogan - 9
Tom Watson - 8
Arnold Palmer - 7
Sam Snead - 7
Bobby Jones - 7
Harry Vardon - 7

You are a fucking moron.

Hey moron number 1, tell moron number 2, that some of those legends played against Jack. It seems that moron number 1, just told me that tiger plays against a deeper field,??????
Thanks for making him look stupid and saving me the keystrokes.

[bradhusker]

Tiger 14 majors, Jack 18 majors, the field? The closest guy is Phil with 4?

Uhm... nevermind.

And as far as bringing up "the rest of the field"... who the fuck do you think either player had to beat to win Majors? The "rest of the field," maybe? That same rest of the field who was playing with the same balls and clubs as Jack and Tiger were (actually, as mentioned, Tiger was playing with outdated clubs until he made the Nike deal in 2000, although was playing with the same ProV1x as everyone else).

And you could make a case that Tiger played against deeper fields then Jack did, since that's the nature of the sport (and most other sports).

So, in conclusion, your take has zero merit, and defies all logic.

Dins, I understand that in golf you are playing against the field, The field Jack faced has way way way more majors. So dont argue that Tiger is facing better players, please.
In reality, you are playing the course itself. You should know this as a golfer, forget the field, its the course you must face.
My MAIN point is a tough one for you to argue against. Its TIGER AND JACK. No other golfer is even close. With that premise, I am only comparing the two greatest golfers who ever lived.
Do you know what one of the greatest golfers of all time said about JACK?

He said, "you play a game of which I am unfamiliar". DID YOU HEAR THAT? So dont give me this crap about the rest of the field.
The reason golf course design was made longer and tougher is simple, The technology mandated as such.
In Jacks day, there was no need, HOWEVER, and this will blow your mind, I looked up the U S open from a year in the late 1960's?? And guess how long the course was ?? it was almost 7,500 yds!!
How fuckin sick is that when you consider that Jack was using heavy metal clubs and a ball that flew 50 yds less than the ball used today????

ALL I am saying is this, that when the dust settles, and Tiger retires, The Golden Bear will STILL be the greatest golfer who ever lived. IMHO.

Does that make me a troll? If so, I wear that moniker as a badge of honor.

[BSmack]

Dinsdale is right about Tiger playing deeper fields. Since the early 80s, international players have been a major force. That was not the case when Jack was dominating. One of Jack Nicklaus' best known quotes had to do with his ability to size up a major field and realize that in any given field he only REALLY had to compete with 20 or so golfers who really believed they were capable of winning. At no time could Tiger ever size up a field and presume that only 20 or so players could realistically win. The fields were/are just TOO deep.

BTW: your argument about "the field" in Jack's day having more majors than the field in Tiger's day is idiotic. Simple math shows that the same number of majors were available to players in Jack's day as there are now. The only difference is that more players have won, thereby showing that more players were CAPABLE of winning. Ergo, Tiger's fields are deeper.

QED

[Dinsdale]

Maybe if Brad leaves a chunk of his brain under his pillow tonight, the Logic Fairy might leave him a little sumpmsumpm.

Easy to rack up Majors when there's only 4 decent players in the field.

Once the mid-90's came along, and the young stars (Woods, Els, Phildo, Vijay, et al) came into their own, and Faldo, Norman, Watson et al, got too old, it was wide open, with a lot more talented players top to bottom.

[bradhusker]

Dinsdale is right about Tiger playing deeper fields. Since the early 80s, international players have been a major force. That was not the case when Jack was dominating. One of Jack Nicklaus' best known quotes had to do with his ability to size up a major field and realize that in any given field he only REALLY had to compete with 20 or so golfers who really believed they were capable of winning. At no time could Tiger ever size up a field and presume that only 20 or so players could realistically win. The fields were/are just TOO deep.

BTW: your argument about "the field" in Jack's day having more majors than the field in Tiger's day is idiotic. Simple math shows that the same number of majors were available to players in Jack's day as there are now. The only difference is that more players have won, thereby showing that more players were CAPABLE of winning. Ergo, Tiger's fields are deeper.

QED

OK, Smack, time to take the gloves off, and slap you silly.

Did you bring up international players to sound impressive? DIDNT WORK. HOW DO WE MEASURE GREATNESS IN GOLF?

The answer. MAJORS.

You and Dinsdale are WRONG about one simple thing, sure, I'll go along with deeper bigger fields,
BUT NOT BETTER. Those hundreds of international stars? Come to me in ten years, and see if we remember ten of them.

For you to say that Tiger is facing better competition? LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!!!!

Just look at the players Jack faced from 1960 thru 1998. YES I said 1998!!!!! ARE U SHOCKED Dins?

In 1998, at the age of 59, Jack finished 6th in the masters. FUCKIN HOLY SHIT!!!!

You come to me when Tiger is 59 years of age, and tell me if he is still able to walk, due to his knees,
MUCH LESS finish 6th in the masters at that age.

THEN MAYBE, you might have a FUCKIN CLUE as to what greatness is.
K BUDDY?

[bradhusker]

Maybe if Brad leaves a chunk of his brain under his pillow tonight, the Logic Fairy might leave him a little sumpmsumpm.

Easy to rack up Majors when there's only 4 decent players in the field.

Once the mid-90's came along, and the young stars (Woods, Els, Phildo, Vijay, et al) came into their own, and Faldo, Norman, Watson et al, got too old, it was wide open, with a lot more talented players top to bottom.

Guess what? Jack played against Faldo, Ballesteros, Norman, Watson, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Stadler, Did you say TOP TO BOTTOM????? BUWAHAHAHAHAHA, are YOU INSANE???

NOWADAYS, the BEST OUT THERE IS PHIL MICKELSON, and guess what? He only has 4 majors!!!
Come to me in ten years when a player today has 4 majors like Phil. THEN, you might have a point/

I STILL STAND BY WHAT I SAID. Tiger was able to rip off 8 or 9 majors before golf course design was able to fully catch up with technology.

THIS is only a comparison between Jack and Tiger. NO OTHER GOLFER is in their league, FACT.

SO, that being said, I am CORRECT. LOOK IT UP. The weapons in Tiger's hands were light years better than what Jack had in his bag. LOOK IT UP ASSHOLE.

OH, and dont forget the ball Tiger strikes, it flies 50 yds further. LOOK IT UP, and get back to me.

SO, just comparing the two greatest golfers who EVER LIVED, Tiger had an unfair advantage that he was clearly able to take full advantage of.

If your pea brain cant understand this simple logic, you might as well pack it in.

[smackaholic]

The depth of the fields today is greater, but, I think there is something to brad's arguement. And no, I'm not talking about his beyond moronic rambling about equipment. I am talking about how for a few years there, there was no real competition. There was lots of very good players, but, no great ones. There was not a Player or Watson.

As for who is better, that can't be answered as they are from different eras, but, I am pretty confident in predicting that with a young Jack in his way, Tiger would still be looking to break into double digits.

[bradhusker]

The depth of the fields today is greater, but, I think there is something to brad's arguement. And no, I'm not talking about his beyond moronic rambling about equipment. I am talking about how for a few years there, there was no real competition. There was lots of very good players, but, no great ones. There was not a Player or Watson.

As for who is better, that can't be answered as they are from different eras, but, I am pretty confident in predicting that with a young Jack in his way, Tiger would still be looking to break into double digits.

RAAAAAAAAACK Smack!! ALSO, dont forget my HOME RUN POINT!! At the age of 59, Jack was 6th at the Masters that year! HOLY SHIT! I cant believe that sick fact.

Talk to me when , at the age of 59, Tiger is even able to walk without a cane, due to his knees. MUCH less contend at the Masters at such an advanced age.
OK?

[Dinsdale]

And Watson took 2nd in The Open at 59... must mean he's better than Jack.

There was lots of very good players, but, no great ones. There was not a Player or Watson.

No, just a guy who trashed every record for "middle-aged" golfers there was, and another guy (maybe 2 of them) that are possibly even going to best those.

[BSmack]

The depth of the fields today is greater, but, I think there is something to brad's arguement. And no, I'm not talking about his beyond moronic rambling about equipment. I am talking about how for a few years there, there was no real competition. There was lots of very good players, but, no great ones. There was not a Player or Watson.

Phil was a first ballot Hall of Famer and Vijay would have been had he not been such a prick. And Ernie, who will be a first ballot guy, had already won 2 US Opens before beginning his career of finishing 2nd to Tiger.

As for who is better, that can't be answered as they are from different eras, but, I am pretty confident in predicting that with a young Jack in his way, Tiger would still be looking to break into double digits.

As would Jack. That is assuming that Jack could find his way to the fitness trailer and practice range often enough.

[bradhusker]

The depth of the fields today is greater, but, I think there is something to brad's arguement. And no, I'm not talking about his beyond moronic rambling about equipment. I am talking about how for a few years there, there was no real competition. There was lots of very good players, but, no great ones. There was not a Player or Watson.

Phil was a first ballot Hall of Famer and Vijay would have been had he not been such a prick. And Ernie, who will be a first ballot guy, had already won 2 US Opens before beginning his career of finishing 2nd to Tiger.

As for who is better, that can't be answered as they are from different eras, but, I am pretty confident in predicting that with a young Jack in his way, Tiger would still be looking to break into double digits.

As would Jack. That is assuming that Jack could find his way to the fitness trailer and practice range often enough.

HOLY SHIT, Did smack just say, "fitness trailer"??? That has got to be the single dumbest remark EVER in here!!!

I just got thru saying that Jack at 59 years of age finishes 6th at the masters!!! And you question his fitness?

I am willing to wager 30 grand, that by the time Tiger reaches 59, his knees will be so shot, that he wont make the cut at an LPGA event, much less the masters.

DINS? Yeah, Watson at 59 almost winning the British? FUCKIN AMAZZIN STUFF!

AND thats why my point still stands on Tiger. Too bad he wasnt blessed with good knees. THAT is why ive got a standing bet with you, that when he reaches 59, he wont be able to do what Jack or Tom did, NOT EVEN CLOSE.

You know what the funny part in all of this is? Jack said it best some years ago.

"Golf is 80 percent between the ears". Right now? Whats between Tigers ears? Thoughts of all the filthy dirty whores who sucked his big black stuff, and took his black stuff right up their dirty ass holes.

Trust me on this, He will NEVER be able to get those thoughts and images out of his head. I know, AS I have those same images floating around in my head as we speak.

SO, to summarize? Jack's record of majors is safe. FOREVER.

[MuchoBulls]

The depth of the fields today is greater, but, I think there is something to brad's arguement. And no, I'm not talking about his beyond moronic rambling about equipment. I am talking about how for a few years there, there was no real competition. There was lots of very good players, but, no great ones. There was not a Player or Watson.

As for who is better, that can't be answered as they are from different eras, but, I am pretty confident in predicting that with a young Jack in his way, Tiger would still be looking to break into double digits.

RACK it

[bradhusker]

The depth of the fields today is greater, but, I think there is something to brad's arguement. And no, I'm not talking about his beyond moronic rambling about equipment. I am talking about how for a few years there, there was no real competition. There was lots of very good players, but, no great ones. There was not a Player or Watson.

As for who is better, that can't be answered as they are from different eras, but, I am pretty confident in predicting that with a young Jack in his way, Tiger would still be looking to break into double digits.

RACK it

Thanks Mucho, And that has always been my take, Jack was and IS the greatest of all time. Here is another amazing stat. Jack has 18 majors, Tiger has 14, BUT did you guys know that Jack finished 2nd in majors a staggerring 19 times!!!

BUT, I want to repeat, Lets see if Tiger can walk without a cane at the age of 59, MUCH LESS finish 6th in the Masters like Jack did.

I have a feeling that when Tiger is pushing 60, his knees will be so shot, even sex will be difficult for him.

[Goober McTuber]

I have a feeling that when Tiger is pushing 60, his knees will be so shot, even sex will be difficult for him.

Nonsense, brad, you’ll be the one on his knees, not Tiger.

[bradhusker]

I have a feeling that when Tiger is pushing 60, his knees will be so shot, even sex will be difficult for him.

Nonsense, brad, you’ll be the one on his knees, not Tiger.

what makes you think that I even like black/oriental or oriental/black cock?? Or is it thai?

[Goober McTuber]

I have a feeling that when Tiger is pushing 60, his knees will be so shot, even sex will be difficult for him.

Nonsense, brad, you’ll be the one on his knees, not Tiger.

what makes you think that I even like black/oriental or oriental/black cock?? Or is it thai?

I'm terribly sorry, brad. What kind of cock is it that you prefer?

[bradhusker]

I'm terribly sorry, brad. What kind of cock is it that you prefer?[/quote][/quote]

Isnt this a PGA Golf thread counselor? I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may be incriminating. Care to re-phrase the question?

[smackaholic]

And Watson took 2nd in The Open at 59... must mean he's better than Jack.

There was lots of very good players, but, no great ones. There was not a Player or Watson.

No, just a guy who trashed every record for "middle-aged" golfers there was, and another guy (maybe 2 of them) that are possibly even going to best those.

I still don't think there is a Player or Watson in that bunch. And Phil didn't step it up until the last few year when he went all arnold shwartzenegger on us. and he still has titties!!!!

[smackaholic]

And Watson took 2nd in The Open at 59... must mean he's better than Jack.

and had he not hit that last 8 iron just a little to well, he'd have won the fuggin' thing!

anybody remember old slammin' sammy snead? dude was active on the tour well into his 60s. Still the sweetest golf swing evah.

Is that fukker still kicking?

[Dinsdale]

anybody remember old slammin' sammy snead?

I don't.

Sin,
Screwey


That complete A-hole made Tiger look like a freaking saint.

[smackaholic]

anybody remember old slammin' sammy snead?

I don't.

Sin,
Screwey


That complete A-hole made Tiger look like a freaking saint.

You talkin' about Sammy? I did a little bit of reading on him and did find some mention of some thinking he was a douche, but, others say he was a classy as they come.

Did some other reading about various old timey golfers and have decided that maybe jack or tiger aren't the best evah. Bobby Jones did some pretty amazing shit back in the day. Dude won everything in sight while holding down a day job as a lawyer. And he might have did more had he not run into health issues.

[Dinsdale]

You talkin' about Sammy? I did a little bit of reading on him and did find some mention of some thinking he was a douche, but, others say he was a classy as they come.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40033&p=768093&hilit=snead#p768093