I'll trade ARC for Wichita

Also from Dan Jenkins.

Q. You pick an All-Star team that includes Ben Hogan with the driver and chipping, and Tiger Woods as the best putter and trouble shot artist. Is Tiger the best player you've seen?

A. "No. He's the best putter — 'til this year. He's made more big putts than anybody. The best player was Hogan, all through the bag. Even Jack Nicklaus agrees with that. Jack Nicklaus is the greatest winner I've ever seen. Hogan's the best player.

"Hogan was the best, hitting all the shots he had to hit. In the old days — they aren't old to me — before courses got so well manicured and before some of the rules changes, you had to be more inventive and creative. Now they just hit the ball a long way, make a putt and go to the next tee. It's a different game. It's a ball-in-the-air game.

"People forget one thing and I think it's huge. When Hogan won his five Opens, counting the war-time one, he couldn't clean his ball on the green. You couldn't do that until 1971 — lift and clean. You had to putt a muddy ball. There was no double cut around the green at the U.S. Open. There was just the green, putting surface and garbage — asparagus or something. He played under tremendously different conditions and still won more tournaments and more majors in a short period of time than anyone so far."

Q. Where do you put Tiger?

A. "I put him in the top five somewhere. He's going to have to beat Jack first (in majors). Whether he does that or not is still a question. I frankly think his knee still bothers him. And knees can go again. Plus he's got two kids now and all the money he needs. What's in his heart? How long is he going to stay bloodthirsty? We don't know."

This interview was done in 2009. Here's the link, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...-jenkins_N.htm

At least we can all agree on one thing, you don't argue about golf with Dan Jenkins

How about paying just a little attention to what's going on in the thread, and what you're replying to, instead of just churning out replies on autopilot?

I was replying to someone saying that Tiger himself had said that GOAT was measured in majors and that this should be an argument for why it is so.

My world view or me liking or disliking the rules do not even enter into this. I was merely pointing out why even if Tiger says X is the criteria for GOAT, it is not necessarily so.

No I don't think we can agree even on the Dan Jenkins line.

"I put him in the top 5"

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

So one second Dan Jenkins is the world authority on golf, and then when he disagrees with your view, he suddenly doesn't know what he's talking about.

Man, I seen now why this thread has gone on and on.

There is a difference between Dan Jenkins the golf reporter reporting on how players talked about the majors and his opinion on where Tiger ranks among golf's elite.

Jenkins unabashed Hogan knob gobbler

NXT, spit out some of the more astonishing Tiger stats, preferably from his prime..

Yeah, why should guys like Tiger and Jack have any say in what their career objectives are, and why should people like us consider whether they achieved their objectives in evaluating their greatness? Makes much more sense for me to go off of anonymous Internet poster MinusEV's completely unbiased expert opinion on what makes a golfer great.

Blasphemer. (and I never read a word of what Wichita said)

that was an excellent installment of LOL BO

Great golfers don't necessarily have to be logical. I mean, we have like 50% of winners every week thanking the invisible man in the sky.


And with all the stats NXT has thrown down in this thread alone on the debate, is it not based on facts? Opinionated facts?

Basically the only opinion in the entire argument is if you think Tiger's huge strength of field increase accounts for 4 less major wins. Because 14<18 is the only number Jack has on him despite playing against much, much weaker competition.

So, you also have problems with reading comprehension?

What opinion have I given on GOAT-criteria?

It's not about Tiger and Jack being logical when looking back at their careers in hindsight, it's about being able to achieve the goals and objectives they set out for themselves.

You've given the opinion that what Tiger has said about the matter is irrelevant.

Clearly this implies that some other criteria exists which you do consider relevant. That you're afraid to elaborate for some reason, isn't really some magic way to act like you don't have an opinion when you clearly do.

Unless you're trying to argue that no one can ever know who was truly greater.

Well if just he said it, then it would be kind of crazy. But if he said it growing up as a boy, and continued to say it thorough adulthood, and Jack had also said it during his career, and the best competitors that both he and Jack played against all agreed that banging as many waitresses as possible during their careers was the most important goal, and this was echoed by the media and most fans; then it would make sense to primarily measure them on this, since this is what the primary goal they were trying to achieve.

Lol at 'clearly this implies...' to try to put up a strawman. The only thing it implies is that Tiger is not a better judge of an objective criteria of GOAT than a lot of others and that his word is not law on that subject.

Jack failed miserably at his #1 goal which was most wins, only once he realized he would fall short of that, he claimed that majors were now his focus. So if we take what your saying to be true that it is about their goals and objectives they set out for themselves, Jack failed pretty bad and therefore is not the GOAT

Omg... you mean...



headexplode.gif

Isn't the fact that Tiger hasn't won a major since 2008 also an issue? Even with the stronger fields, one would think the best golfer of all time would have continued beating people who aren't as good as him.

That's why Tiger isn't the GOAT. He should have easily surpassed Jack's record and he didn't. And I think that anyone who still thinks Tiger is the GOAT should have to explain why they think this is true despite the fact that, at a point in his career when he should have been winning majors, he wasn't.

And GTFO with the strength of field argument. That wasn't even an issue until Tiger stopped winning majors. And it has no bearing on the argument, except as an excuse for Tiger's poor performance in these events over the last six years.

You need to provide some kind of citation where Jack said that this was his number 1 goal. Not that I don't believe you, but I don't believe you.

Wasn’t even an issue for who? I'd say ask my friends when I told them it would be harder for Tiger late in his career when the 4 year old that should have been a point guard (Dustin Johnson, Bubba Watson, etc) picked up a golf club instead of a basketball.

In 1999 (I remember it they year because I was playing a few groups in front of Tiger in a major championship) I told my buddies that the kids I saw in the gallery were not golfers but were going to pick up a club for sure when they got home. The kids that in prior years would never think of playing golf were now starting at the perfect age. I specifically told them the kids that were 8-12 years old in 10 years would be 18-22 and be absolutely dominant ball strikers. With the entire field being comprised of great ball strikers it is simply a given that every week one of their putters would be hot and winning would be almost impossible on a week to week basis on Tour.

This is what created the massively larger player pool, which was also the MUCH more athletically gifted player pool. This isn’t speculation or excuses, it is simply what happened. Tiger is certainly responsible for his own downfall from the choices he made, but he also is a bit unfortunate he was so badass early in his career that golf became THE SPORT for a decade. It became the way for free college in the eyes of the parents and it became the way to be cool in an individual sport where you don’t have to rely on anyone but yourself. Which is exactly what the prototypical Type A professional athlete wants. It is a natural draw for the specific person you would design for the game.

Tall, coordinated, self-motivated, strong, explosive, focused.

Ship, I hear what you're saying. I agree with you 100 percent.

But let me ask you this. In a world where the golfers are now athletic freaks of nature, how does Erik Compton compete? By your own logic, this shouldn't be possible.

And I'm not trying to troll you or tell you you're wrong, because I'm not. I'm actually looking for an honest answer because I couldn't give you one if you were the one asking me.

It has been posted many times in this thread. Maybe NXT can post it again. It is complete fact Would this even change your opinion?

Its not like Tiger hasnt been relevant in majors though. Since his US Open win he has played 17 majors and has had 9 top 10s with 6 of those being Top 5s. Going off the top of my head Id guess no one since then has more top 5s in majors but that is just a hunch