Lol who is bashing jack or the game back then? Not one person itt. Every "tiger nut hugger" as you call them would instantly agree Jack was the second greatest golfer to ever live. Hardly bashing.

I'm not sure if everyone had the same conditions that year, but most of the time in the British, the weather means everything and if you get a ****ty draw it doesn't matter how good you are, you might miss the cut.

On the contrary, a mediocre player could get a great draw and on Friday night be leading the tournament when Tiger gets the ****ty draw and is on his way back to slay white bitches in America. That's why the British usually doesn't get really good until the weekend.

yeah my bad, maybe not this thread but BreakYaNeck is always talking **** about how the tour sucked back in the day and Jack sucks, etc.

here is one of his posts from the Tiger thread that i was referring to...

Originally Posted by BreakYaNeck
Leo your a moron. You wanna know the only reason Jack was losing to those players? Because the tour ****** sucked back then and there were not that many guys that can win. Now anyone can get hot and win because the tour is that much better so just stfu your clueless about what your talking about

kinda titling he got "you're" wrong so many times, but ill give him the benefit of the doubt, he was just steaming from Leo preaching the gospel

Mucks the reason I have to put it like that is because your eyes are closed. Did the tour back then suck compared to today's tour? Yes absolutely it was FAR WEAKER and that point is not even arguable. Not near as many guys were capable of winning. Sucked may not be the correct word but you get the point (well you dont but you know what I mean)

Now onto the question does Jack suck. Of course not, I think I have said I believe him to be the 2nd GOAT. If I haven't well you have now heard it here

My infatuation with the play down the stretch is it's the most thrilling to watch. A guy can make a bogey on the first day of the tournament and recover from it, but if he makes one on 18 coming down the stretch he could lose the tournament. That's what makes watching golf so great, you get to see them jockey for position on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday and when the back nine on Sunday comes around, its time to see who wants to close.

IMO, this accomplishment was way better than any of his other wins including the '97 Masters and the '00 U.S. Open. Simply amazing.

Just because the ignorant public wasn't aware of Watson's '09 Open performance doesn't make it any less incredible. Tons more people watched this year's Ravens Super Bowl win, does that mean it's a greater sports feat than Tom? I think not.

BO

Who is Jesse Owens?

WTF does this even mean? Those are just words. It is simply a fact that Jack faced fields drawn from a smaller subset of the U.S. and world population. Jack is 73 years old. He played against a different and demonstrably weaker group of players. Those facts have been repeated over and over in this thread. There are statistics that demonstrate separation from the field. There are statistics that demonstrate superior skill.

But, you rely on your assuredly faded memories of a storied time gone by of the greats of the game like some grizzled veteran baseball scout clinging desperately to the notion that someone either does or doesn't look like a ballplayer and scoff at notions of replacing RBIs and Wins with OPS and WHIP. No one disrespects the game; they study it, they analyze it and they use data points other than the pure mathematical truth of 18 > 14 to reach their conclusions.

Fair enough. I think you make alot of relevant posts, but just get really defensive sometimes and thats why I came on here and started arguing for Jack and GOAT etc.

I almost felt sorry for Bo and Leo bc you guys just pick on them constantly for having their own opinion. They're older than us(not sure about Leo but i know Bo is) and know what it was like back then and you guys don't respect that at all. Sure you can look at stats and read internet articles about the past to get a better understanding, but that doesn't give you a true feel of what it was truly like.

I can admit I made some bad posts when I first came in here, but I got defensive when some of you guys bashed me as you've done to other people on here for having an opinion about something.

Tiger has been one of the most dominant athletes of all time, no question. He has proven himself time and time again. I guess I'm just stubborn and put too much emphasis on major championships and that blinds me from seeing what Tiger has done already is enough to crown him, but i can still have my opinion and not expect to get bashed right?

Very good post

mucks is the only poster that ive ever had on ignore who ive never been compelled to click the "show" button even once. which is astounding considering he comprises like 30 of the 100 posts on each page

Maybe we have different definitions of what the criteria here, because winning a US Open by 15 shots (and to a lesser degree a Masters by 12) is about as remarkable a thing as you can get. That US Open performance is one of the single greatest athletic feats of all time. He beat 100+ of the best players of the world by 4 shots a round.

The Watson thing, while truly amazing, was largely a fluke aided by the course playing super short (and being links golf of course). It was the perfect setup for him to make a run, although that shouldn't be seen as taking a shot at him.

You have this basically exactly opposite.

I'm sorry but you keep repeating the bolded statements. What do these mean? They don't mean anything. "Knowing what it was like back then" is meaningless. We have stats and facts which allow us to compare each person to their respective competition. THen guys like BO to bridge the gap between the eras by admitting that even just 20 years ago the learning facilities and the condition and atheticism of the average college golfer was far, far worse than it is today.


Wasn't he also super familiar with the course and almost nobody else in the field was? Or am I thinking of something else?

Yeah if he shipped Augusta at age 59 that's a whole different ball game.

Not so quick to bring up modern equipment in this case, are you BO?

First of all, i hope you click "show" on this post because i want you to know that im honored! I would have put me on ignore too. I know I trolled pretty hard when I first started posting but that was just because of the personal attacks I received when I tried to defend Jack. and BO for that matter. BO might troll the **** out of yall sometimes, but he is knowledgeable of the game and makes some good points. Gotta respect that over someone like ARC that uses the race card every 5 seconds for no good reason.

I guess lately i have been looking too much into Tiger's goal of winning 20 majors, and passing Jack's record as a crucial benchmark of achieving greatness or something. Tiger has owned the tour over the past 15 years during a time when fields are deeper than they used to be and that should probably be enough, but idk.

The scandal for me is huge when we look back on his career when its all said and done though. Before the scandal and after he won the 2008 US Open on a broken leg he was on pace to catch Jack's record for majors and I would have said he's the GOAT because there was no doubt he would do it, barring any setbacks like a cheating scandal that would turn his world upside down. Proving he can be drug down to rock bottom and fight back to where he was, or even better, would do it for me. Even if he doesn't eclipse jacks record, but can prove he can get back to where he once was after being blackballed by a lot of his supporters would be such a great story and would be just another reason he is the greatest. With his play this year already, it looks like we're in store for an epic season. Insert popcorn gif

The only reason I bring up the race card is because there is no other explanation for the old guard still saying Jack > Tiger.

The numbers are clear, and everyone agrees that the competition is tougher now. So I'm sorry but I don't know what else it could be.

This whole "BO is old (he's like 6 years older than me btw), he knows what it was like back then" reeks of "it used to be a lot better when no black people played golf because the global talent pool was much weaker and good ol' boys from Ohio could dominate."

There is literally no argument left for the Jack crowd. Their credibility would skyrocket if they just admit they are wrong. Instead they fight on because their egos are too sensitive to admit defeat.

It appears that we shall agree to disagree on this.

i was under the impression you just picked up golf recently. Im pretty sure BO has known nothing but golf his entire life. just sayin

i don't even know how to put somebody on ignore, but you might be the reason i find out. the majority of your posts are offensive and worthless

Who do you guys like this week at the Valero?

Well you said "BO is old, he knows what it was like". I still don't know wtf that means. Is his opinion consistent with that of most old people who know what it was like back then? I mean actual good golfers? I doubt it. Just because he's the resident Golf Expert on our little forum doesn't really mean much. He's just some guy that perpetually thinks he's better than everyone else. And uses that to "prove" that Jack was better, even though all metrics prove Jack was worse than Tiger. Noticeably inferior in all aspects.

Probably someone like Kuchar or Schwartzel.

Classic case of can't see the forest for the trees. From BO's perspective it is "I think Jack is GOAT because I idolized him as a kid and I read a book about him" plus "I am a terrific player and have a ton of knowledge about the golf world" equals "JACK IS GOAT NO DOUBT DONT QUESTION ME MOUTHBREATHING MORONS"

All it means is that he is a lot older than most of the posters on this forum and he has a better understanding of what it was like on tour back when Jack was playing. Telling me BO is only 6 years older than you means nothing to me. You only picked up golf a couple years ago and know nothing but Tigers Wood. You downplay Jack's career and belittle him because the fields he was playing against weren't as deep and more importantly because you think BO is a racist and love to troll him.

BO was a golf fan and around for when Jack was crushing the tour. But all that doesn't matter because you have your stats and don't care how things actually played out. Using stats to compare somebody's career can be an effective tool to some degree, but it doesn't define it, imo. When you are able to actually watch a tournament and how it played out, its much more effective than looking at the leaderboard 30 years later.

None of this stuff matters. You still don't get it. Watching a tournament and "seeing how it played out" is meaningless. Utterly and objectively meaningless. Seriously. It does. Not. Matter.

Every intangible that Jack brought to the table...everything that the old guard wants to credit him with... is all reflected in the stats. Don't you get that? How do you not get that? The stats do not lie. Yes, you absolutely can look at stats and facts thirty years late and be able to easily compare him to his competition at the time.

It's just that legends like Jack grow more and more legendary because people love to talk and reminisce about old Jack stories. This is very common and happens in all sports. ******s are still trying to get Jack Morris into the baseball hall of fame because of one ****ing 10-inning game he pitched. Sorry I know I talk about baseball a lot but it's one thing I do know a lot about.

People call Andre the Giant 7'4" when he was really like 6'11". Joe Namath is a ****ing football legend because of 1 bull**** "guarantee" he gave before a coinflip and ended up being right. If he was wrong, everyone would have brushed it off and said "he lost a coinflip".

Every sport is loaded with stories about people that build them up into things they are not. The great thing about golf and other sports with great, meaningful stats is that it cuts through all the bull**** anecdotal evidence and refutes it without a doubt.

And "Tigers Wood" is not the only thing I know about golf. Our of nowhere, and I'm not even sure why, I started watching basically every tournament at the beginning of 2011. Tiger was not a factor back then and not for a long time. I seriously like never saw Tiger play golf prior to 2011. The sport never interested me and I thought the only people who watched it were old elitist racists. Glad to see I was way wrong in that assessment.

And Mucks, since BO is older than me and "knows what it was like back then", here is him talking about college golf in the early '90s:

He plainly states that practice facilities and golfers are in much better shape and golfers are more athletic now than they were just 20 years ago. Now consider the difference from 1960 to 1990.

Since BO is the Arbiter of All Things Golf, his statement here leaves no doubt that the skill level must be significantly better worldwide now than in the 1960s.

And Tiger still wins at a noticeably better clip than Jack did.

Case closed.