yeah and jack was fat. Imagine if he had access to the same trainers and genetic laboratories as tiger.

Tiger's fist pump is a disgrace to golf.

Get real. Should he tip his cap politely when he's hobbling around the course and draining 20 footers on the 18th hole of the U.S Open for the tie?

Golf has never had the energy of a Tiger Woods fist pump moment.

YES SIR!

I don't have a problem with Tiger expressing himself the way he does. Just adrenaline, no big deal.

Come on now. Guys like Arnie and Jack were the Tigers of their generation right down to the crowd roar. No difference. Players always stated that there were two types of roars at Augusta National, roars for Jack and roars for everybody else and the difference was unmistakable. The roars that went up in 1998 were otherworldly.

BO

Pretty sure this is incorrect and this is labeled a MC. I believe the "streak" started after this tournament.

Some quick googling shows that Jack had 10 no cut events in his streak of 111 and Tiger with 21 in his streak of 102.

edit: Tigers total streak was 142 and averaging 5 no cut events a year his total is somewhere in the low 30s. So between 20-25%. A big number, no doubt.

Half right. According to pgatour.com it is a WD, can't get more official than that. But I was mistaken, the streak did begin after this tournament.

The exact numbers are 142 straight finishes in the money, 31 of those events had no cuts.

BO

Now i realize the near impossibilty for comparison between players then and now competing together, but to say the talent pool then was anywhere close to where it is now is just silly as it holds true in ALL sports. The 5th best player in almost any sport could compete with the best from said sport 40years ago and most likely dominate them as well. Like say Chris Paul vs. Cousy or West, or maybe Federer vs. anyone imo. Understanding of course the opposition they played against being better or worse is the real argument. Obviously there are exceptions to the true greats, but to see Tiger dominate, really DOMINATE, the entire world of golf, especially with all the talent and players there are now is insane.

I would like to see one PGA Tour event, where all the players use equipment from the 70s (small persimmon drivers, balata golf balls)... That would be awesome to see players hit Driver, 2 iron on par 4s again

maybe it's just me, or maybe I just don't see it for what it could be, but I don't see how it would be any good. I really don't want to see a bunch of pars on easy courses. I want to look at holes that are next to impossible and I want the greatest in the world try to tear them apart with birdies and making a bunch of bogeys in the process. That's what makes watching golf exciting for me.

rick reilly's only talent is writing fluff pieces about obscure high school athletes, and when he tries to analyze sports rationally he generally fails miserably. i mean i used to enjoy the **** he'd write for the back page of SI but that was 'human interest' stuff and not serious journalism.

not if you adjust for the strength of the fields today. it's logically inconsistent; jack's top competitors won more than tiger's top competitors because they played against weaker fields; you can't then turn around and use this as an argument to say that jack's competition was tougher! btw mickelson is a top 10 player of all time, as much as this may enrage some people.

this is a strawman argument. i, for one, don't give a **** about how many tournaments or majors tiger has won. i do, on the other hand, give a **** that he dominates deeper fields than ever to an extent that jack never came close to (specifically in winning % and in stroke averages).

this is moving the goalposts. first of all there are plenty of other statistics besides PGA Tour victories and majors to work with. second of all, it's not clear at all that those are the right statistics to look at -- statistical analysts in other sports put statistics in their proper context by adjusting relative to era and competition, so there's no reason that we can't do the same in golf. so no, it's not black and white unless you are a simpleton.

I understand your point, but these courses would no longer be easy because the pros will be hitting long to mid irons into every hole, and the fairways would be harder to hit due to less-forgiving equipment

Nothing bores me more than tour pros bombing 350 yard drives and hitting wedges into every hole

Why are the fields per se weaker back in Jack's day. I really want to hear this analyzed. The scores at the Masters were almost exactly the same in 1969 as they are now, but for some reason it is "better" today. I have yet to hear any real support of this position beyond "everyone knows." I mean, I went back and looked at a lot of Masters leaderboards and the dynamic is almost exactly the same. I sort of think you could argue that the fields were almost stronger back then. There were some legends around when Jack was breaking onto the scene. He really had to compete with that. When Tiger turned pro, #1 in the world was a 41 year old Greg Norman who has as many majors as John Daly.

Mickelson top 10 of all time?

1. Tiger
2. Jack
3. Hogan
4. Hagen
5. Player
6. Watson
7. Palmer
8. Bobby Jones
9. Snead
10. Sarazen
11. Byron Nelson
12. Bobby Locke

etc.... the list can keep going really.

This sums up my opinion as well, except that I would say there are far more quality players today than in Jack's day.