Tiger Woods (2 Viewers)

[lod01]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

 

[Apple Jack]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

In golf parlance, we call this a whiff.

 

[lod01]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

In golf parlance, we call this a whiff.

That's because you don't know jack ####. You do know it's true however. It's the reason there are so many good to great players. Simply take the clubs yourself, clown, and you would find out how bad you suck with a driver 1/3 the size of the driver you currently use. If you think you will be just as good, you are full of ####.

 

[lod01]

I went golfing a couple years ago with a guy and his dad. The dad was in his 60's and he couldn't carry the water that we hit over on any hole. Finally on the last 2 I told him to swing my driver which had a much larger head. Both drives easily cleared the water. It's simply better technology today.

 

[17seconds]

Golfers with 3 or more PGA Tour wins at age 23:

Tiger, Rory, Phil, Sergio and...

Patrick Reed.

Tiger with 15 - next closest ...6.

greatest golfer that has ever lived. that is not what we are debating here.

Nicklaus until he wins 18. If he ties Jack I'll give it to him.

Nicklaus dominated a game played by a few rich country club kids in the US and maybe a couple other English-speaking countries. Comparing him to Woods is like comparing the world's greatest ski jumper to LeBron James or Lionel Messi. Congratulations, you're better than the handful of other people who play your sport.

"Greatest" does not have the same meaning as "best". You can't compare eras in any sport. I believe Tiger vs Jack in their primes Tiger is better. Doesn't mean he's the greatest. Jack was winning majors over a stretch of 25 years, Tiger had a 10 year stretch.

An argument can be made in the other direction. Tiger plays a game where the equipment allows you to hit it 50 yards further and the courses have not been adjusted enough. There's a greater understanding of fitness and the golf swing as well. There is strong competition at the junior and college levels. Today it is easier for a person to be as good at golf as Jack Nicklaus was.

 

[lod01]

Golfers with 3 or more PGA Tour wins at age 23:

Tiger, Rory, Phil, Sergio and...

Patrick Reed.

Tiger with 15 - next closest ...6.

greatest golfer that has ever lived. that is not what we are debating here.

Nicklaus until he wins 18. If he ties Jack I'll give it to him.

Nicklaus dominated a game played by a few rich country club kids in the US and maybe a couple other English-speaking countries. Comparing him to Woods is like comparing the world's greatest ski jumper to LeBron James or Lionel Messi. Congratulations, you're better than the handful of other people who play your sport.

"Greatest" does not have the same meaning as "best". You can't compare eras in any sport. I believe Tiger vs Jack in their primes Tiger is better. Doesn't mean he's the greatest. Jack was winning majors over a stretch of 25 years, Tiger had a 10 year stretch.

An argument can be made in the other direction. Tiger plays a game where the equipment allows you to hit it 50 yards further and the courses have not been adjusted enough. There's a greater understanding of fitness and the golf swing as well. There is strong competition at the junior and college levels. Today it is easier for a person to be as good at golf as Jack Nicklaus was.

applejack says bull#### to that. But then that statement he made shows his lack of golf knowledge.

 

[sho nuff]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

In golf parlance, we call this a whiff.

That's because you don't know jack ####. You do know it's true however. It's the reason there are so many good to great players. Simply take the clubs yourself, clown, and you would find out how bad you suck with a driver 1/3 the size of the driver you currently use. If you think you will be just as good, you are full of ####.

Great coming from you.

I have zero doubt that TIger and other top golfers today could play with the clubs of the past if that is what they had grown up playing with and practicing with.

Also...do we get to go back to the courses set up like they were back then too?

 

[17seconds]

Golfers with 3 or more PGA Tour wins at age 23:

Tiger, Rory, Phil, Sergio and...

Patrick Reed.

Tiger with 15 - next closest ...6.

greatest golfer that has ever lived. that is not what we are debating here.

Nicklaus until he wins 18. If he ties Jack I'll give it to him.

Nicklaus dominated a game played by a few rich country club kids in the US and maybe a couple other English-speaking countries. Comparing him to Woods is like comparing the world's greatest ski jumper to LeBron James or Lionel Messi. Congratulations, you're better than the handful of other people who play your sport.

"Greatest" does not have the same meaning as "best". You can't compare eras in any sport. I believe Tiger vs Jack in their primes Tiger is better. Doesn't mean he's the greatest. Jack was winning majors over a stretch of 25 years, Tiger had a 10 year stretch.

An argument can be made in the other direction. Tiger plays a game where the equipment allows you to hit it 50 yards further and the courses have not been adjusted enough. There's a greater understanding of fitness and the golf swing as well. There is strong competition at the junior and college levels. Today it is easier for a person to be as good at golf as Jack Nicklaus was.

applejack says bull#### to that. But then that statement he made shows his lack of golf knowledge.

... and remember I said IMO if Tiger TIES Jack in majors he's the greatest. He's played the best golf but he's not the greatest golfer of all time. If he equals Jack's majors we can call him the greatest because he had a stretch where he played at a higher level.

 

[Abraham]

 

[mr roboto]

I'm so glad lod01 outed himself as an idiot. Makes it easier to ignore his opinion.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

In golf parlance, we call this a whiff.

That's because you don't know jack ####. You do know it's true however. It's the reason there are so many good to great players. Simply take the clubs yourself, clown, and you would find out how bad you suck with a driver 1/3 the size of the driver you currently use. If you think you will be just as good, you are full of ####.

Great coming from you.

I have zero doubt that TIger and other top golfers today could play with the clubs of the past if that is what they had grown up playing with and practicing with.

Also...do we get to go back to the courses set up like they were back then too?

I remember when a 420 par 4 was jacked up long. And 440?? Getouttahere. 250 drives were big - only a few guys could hit it 300 downwind.

3 woods into the monsterous 220 yard par 3.

 

[BobbyLayne]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

In golf parlance, we call this a whiff.

That's because you don't know jack ####. You do know it's true however. It's the reason there are so many good to great players. Simply take the clubs yourself, clown, and you would find out how bad you suck with a driver 1/3 the size of the driver you currently use. If you think you will be just as good, you are full of ####.

Great coming from you.

I have zero doubt that TIger and other top golfers today could play with the clubs of the past if that is what they had grown up playing with and practicing with.

Also...do we get to go back to the courses set up like they were back then too?

I remember when a 420 par 4 was jacked up long. And 440?? Getouttahere. 250 drives were big - only a few guys could hit it 300 downwind.

3 woods into the monsterous 220 yard par 3.

Nicklaus had some Ruthian traits, though. I don't think anyone has ever been that long (relative to peers) combined with his accuracy, and his long iron play is probably the best of all-time. He hit his 2 and 3 iron the same trajectory as most guys 5 or 6 iron, meaning he could get them to settle on the green quicker.

When he won his first Open Championship at Muirfield, he came to the 71st hole tied for the lead with two others. Narrow par 5, but brutal tall fescue on both sides, dead if you go off line. He hit his 3-iron 290 yards off the tee, and ran a 5-iron on from 245. Nobody else could have made those shots in 1966. Two-putt birdie, par on the last, wins by one.

When they finally started keeping stats in 1980, 40 year old Jack finished 10th in distance and 13th in driving accuracy. Nobody has ever come close to matching his record of 23 for total driving (next best is 35, Norman and Price had years in the 40s, Tiger had a 56 in 2000, most years the Tour leader is in the 70s). Back in his prime he was probably top 3 for distance and top 10 for accuracy, year in and year out.

 

[encaitar]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

In golf parlance, we call this a whiff.

That's because you don't know jack ####. You do know it's true however. It's the reason there are so many good to great players. Simply take the clubs yourself, clown, and you would find out how bad you suck with a driver 1/3 the size of the driver you currently use. If you think you will be just as good, you are full of ####.

No. You don't know jack #### is more like it. The technology of blade irons has changed little from the 1960s. Of course you can make the case with cavity backs, but very few tour players play them. However, anyone playing a blade on today's tour would be able to play an old McGregor with no issues at all. The only REAL change in today's irons is that they've all been de-lofted. A 2-iron today is the same loft that a 1-iron was in 1970. A 9 iron in 1970 was 48 degrees. Today a 9 iron is 42 degrees. The reason today's golfers can hit a 9 iron 30 yards longer than Nicklaus could is because they're playing a 7 iron labeled as a 9 iron.

So, every time Tiger hits his 270 yard 2 iron stinger he ####s all over your idiotic statement that "he couldn't hit a 1-iron".

FYI, video analysis of Jack's swing would estimate his swing speed in his prime at about 110-115 mph. Today most tour players are over 120. That has nothing to do with the type of club they are swinging.

 

[Jayrok]

Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver.

Oh good lord.

 

[JuniorNB]

It's funny to see the movement of the goal posts by the Tiger nuthuggers. Now that it's become painfully obvious that Tiger is not going to break Nicklaus's major record, let's turn our attention to the fact that Jack had no competition. Classic

 

[lod01]

I'm so glad lod01 outed himself as an idiot. Makes it easier to ignore his opinion.

Coming from an idiot.

 

[lod01]

Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver.

Oh good lord.

He can't get off the tee with his current driver without cranking some spectator upside the head. What makes you think he could get off the tee with an inferior smaller driver.

 

[lod01]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

In golf parlance, we call this a whiff.

That's because you don't know jack ####. You do know it's true however. It's the reason there are so many good to great players. Simply take the clubs yourself, clown, and you would find out how bad you suck with a driver 1/3 the size of the driver you currently use. If you think you will be just as good, you are full of ####.

Great coming from you.

I have zero doubt that TIger and other top golfers today could play with the clubs of the past if that is what they had grown up playing with and practicing with.

Also...do we get to go back to the courses set up like they were back then too?

I remember when a 420 par 4 was jacked up long. And 440?? Getouttahere. 250 drives were big - only a few guys could hit it 300 downwind.

3 woods into the monsterous 220 yard par 3.

Nicklaus had some Ruthian traits, though. I don't think anyone has ever been that long (relative to peers) combined with his accuracy, and his long iron play is probably the best of all-time. He hit his 2 and 3 iron the same trajectory as most guys 5 or 6 iron, meaning he could get them to settle on the green quicker.

When he won his first Open Championship at Muirfield, he came to the 71st hole tied for the lead with two others. Narrow par 5, but brutal tall fescue on both sides, dead if you go off line. He hit his 3-iron 290 yards off the tee, and ran a 5-iron on from 245. Nobody else could have made those shots in 1966. Two-putt birdie, par on the last, wins by one.

When they finally started keeping stats in 1980, 40 year old Jack finished 10th in distance and 13th in driving accuracy. Nobody has ever come close to matching his record of 23 for total driving (next best is 35, Norman and Price had years in the 40s, Tiger had a 56 in 2000, most years the Tour leader is in the 70s). Back in his prime he was probably top 3 for distance and top 10 for accuracy, year in and year out.

Sho nothing, apple dork and this encephalitis aren't going to like this post.

Seriously that encaitar thinks that people could hit an iron from the 70's as well as an iron from today.

 

[Apple Jack]

You're an idiot.

 

[Otis]

Great thread fellas.

 

[JuniorNB]

They're mad again, Finless.

 

[DiStefano]

They're mad again, Finless.

Nuthuggers tend to get that way when Eldrick flames out.

 

[JuniorNB]

They're mad again, Finless.

Nuthuggers tend to get that way when Eldrick flames out.

I like that he's been throwing the occasional good round in there, like he did Saturday. Look at Saturday's posts. lol They get so excited. Start thinking it's 1999 again.

 

[Dark Matter]

This thread is ridiculous can't stop clicking on it

 

[encaitar]

Seriously that encaitar thinks that people could hit an iron from the 70's as well as an iron from today.

You obviously don't play blades. I have all 3 sets of my grandpa's old irons. I've hit all of them. Are my new blades nicer to hit? Yes. The new irons have more bounce, most likely due to courses being softer today than they were in the 70s, but otherwise they are fundamentally the same club as the old MacGregor's and Hogan's my grandpa used. Any tour player today could hit them with ease.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seriously that encaitar thinks that people could hit an iron from the 70's as well as an iron from today.

You obviously don't play blades. I have all 3 sets of my grandpa's old irons. I've hit all of them. Are my new blades nicer to hit? Yes. The new irons have more bounce, most likely due to courses being softer today than they were in the 70s, but otherwise they are fundamentally the same club as the old MacGregor's and Hogan's my grandpa used. Any tour player today could hit them with ease.

I'd be willing to bet he doesn't even know what you're talking about. I wouldn't, if I hadn't played a round with a scratch golfer friend who played with forged irons a couple years ago.

Guy was obviously trolling to begin with, nobody should need confirmation of that, but if someone did this page should do it.

 

[Apple Jack]

Seriously that encaitar thinks that people could hit an iron from the 70's as well as an iron from today.

You obviously don't play blades. I have all 3 sets of my grandpa's old irons. I've hit all of them. Are my new blades nicer to hit? Yes. The new irons have more bounce, most likely due to courses being softer today than they were in the 70s, but otherwise they are fundamentally the same club as the old MacGregor's and Hogan's my grandpa used. Any tour player today could hit them with ease.

I have a buddy with a set of White Cameo Apex IIs from 1980ish. I borrowed them for a few months a few years ago and loved them. Not quite as much as the 90s Tour Models I had in college, but close. Gorgeous clubs.

And yeah, the profiles on forged clubs have widened a bit on the sole and face. Otherwise, they're still pretty much the same. Forged is forged. The shaft is probably the more significant technology upgrade for people who play forged clubs.

 

[zoonation]

This thread went off the rails quickly.

 

[BassNBrew]

Golfers with 3 or more PGA Tour wins at age 23:

Tiger, Rory, Phil, Sergio and...

Patrick Reed.

Tiger with 15 - next closest ...6.

greatest golfer that has ever lived. that is not what we are debating here.

Nicklaus until he wins 18. If he ties Jack I'll give it to him.

Nicklaus dominated a game played by a few rich country club kids in the US and maybe a couple other English-speaking countries. Comparing him to Woods is like comparing the world's greatest ski jumper to LeBron James or Lionel Messi. Congratulations, you're better than the handful of other people who play your sport.

I can agree with your statement concerning the entire field, but what are your thoughts on Player, Travino, Watson, Palmer, etc relative to Phil, Duffner, Sergio, etc? It just seems to me that the next best 10 golfers gave Jack more competition than the next best 10 Tiger faces.

 

[Dark Matter]

OUT @ Bay Hill

http://www.tigerwoods.com/news/2014/03/18/69554590/tiger-to-miss-arnold-palmer-invitational-due-to-back-spasms/

There's where the real nuthuggers hang.

 

[Otis]

OUT @ Bay Hill

http://www.tigerwoods.com/news/2014/03/18/69554590/tiger-to-miss-arnold-palmer-invitational-due-to-back-spasms/

There's where the real nuthuggers hang.

Sucks. Weekends are so much less interesting without him in it.

I still don't understand. I know back problems can be brutal, but for a pro athlete getting the best care money can buy, you'd think they could sort this out.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

In golf parlance, we call this a whiff.

That's because you don't know jack ####. You do know it's true however. It's the reason there are so many good to great players. Simply take the clubs yourself, clown, and you would find out how bad you suck with a driver 1/3 the size of the driver you currently use. If you think you will be just as good, you are full of ####.

No. You don't know jack #### is more like it. The technology of blade irons has changed little from the 1960s. Of course you can make the case with cavity backs, but very few tour players play them. However, anyone playing a blade on today's tour would be able to play an old McGregor with no issues at all. The only REAL change in today's irons is that they've all been de-lofted. A 2-iron today is the same loft that a 1-iron was in 1970. A 9 iron in 1970 was 48 degrees. Today a 9 iron is 42 degrees. The reason today's golfers can hit a 9 iron 30 yards longer than Nicklaus could is because they're playing a 7 iron labeled as a 9 iron.

So, every time Tiger hits his 270 yard 2 iron stinger he ####s all over your idiotic statement that "he couldn't hit a 1-iron".

FYI, video analysis of Jack's swing would estimate his swing speed in his prime at about 110-115 mph. Today most tour players are over 120. That has nothing to do with the type of club they are swinging.

This kind of reminds me of TSP thread where it's argued that the 2013 Jags would beat the 1972 Dolphins. And they simply assume well if somehow the Dolphins were magically transported to this place and time and were made to play in 2013 rules, with their getting stuck with old training routines and old playbooks, yadayada, while the Jags get all the modern conveniences, the Jags would win 62-7. Society advances it's true (is Ben Johnson greater than Jesse Owens? No IMO...) but greatness has to be measured in its time. Nicklaus was a physical freak for his time, he's still a marvel; it's an open question how Woods was so dominant for the period that he was, but something has happened. There's a lot we don't know about the guy, one day things will come out, more will be learned, but greatness is written over the long haul and it's measured within one's time and in the end when all is said and done I don't even know if Woods will even be the greatest of his generation.

 

[McGarnicle]

OUT @ Bay Hillhttp://www.tigerwoods.com/news/2014/03/18/69554590/tiger-to-miss-arnold-palmer-invitational-due-to-back-spasms/

There's where the real nuthuggers hang.

Sucks. Weekends are so much less interesting without him in it.

I still don't understand. I know back problems can be brutal, but for a pro athlete getting the best care money can buy, you'd think they could sort this out.

Ive never had back problems and have always been a reasonably active dude. Then one day I don't even know what happened, I assume a pulled muscle, but it was excruciating to walk or to even get out of bed to piss. A week later after bed rest and being careful to move as little as possible, the pain and immobility were 98% gone. The stress I put on my back compared to Tiger, and his schedule, and the physical toll of swinging a golf club millions of times from the moment his toddler hands could grip a club until thousands of days later, I'm surprised he can still swing a club.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Augusta in doubt now, hopefully he plays

 

[mr roboto]

Nicklaus was not a 'physical freak.' He was a tubby kid who was very talented. He wasn't somehow uniquely built to hit the golf ball.

In fact, golf gives little to no benefit to being a 'physical freak'. Even the swing mechanics are more about control, timing and intellectual grasp of biomechanics. The only freaks I can think of are Daly (huge backswing) and Bubba (not so much a freak but an outlier in that his swing is not coached at all).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nicklaus was not a 'physical freak.' He was a tubby kid who was very talented. He wasn't somehow uniquely built to hit the golf ball.

In fact, golf gives little to no benefit to being a 'physical freak'. Even the swing mechanics are more about control, timing and intellectual grasp of biomechanics. The only freaks I can think of are Daly (huge backswing) and Bubba (not so much a freak but an outlier in that his swing is not coached at all).

He was a tubby kid who was very talented.

Ok that's what I meant more or less - he could hit a mile for his time even though he wasn't huge or some kind of golfing Wilt Chamberlain, and also look at his longevity.

Nicklaus also seemed to excel at the mental side of things.

 

[Zow]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

In golf parlance, we call this a whiff.

That's because you don't know jack ####. You do know it's true however. It's the reason there are so many good to great players. Simply take the clubs yourself, clown, and you would find out how bad you suck with a driver 1/3 the size of the driver you currently use. If you think you will be just as good, you are full of ####.

No. You don't know jack #### is more like it. The technology of blade irons has changed little from the 1960s. Of course you can make the case with cavity backs, but very few tour players play them. However, anyone playing a blade on today's tour would be able to play an old McGregor with no issues at all. The only REAL change in today's irons is that they've all been de-lofted. A 2-iron today is the same loft that a 1-iron was in 1970. A 9 iron in 1970 was 48 degrees. Today a 9 iron is 42 degrees. The reason today's golfers can hit a 9 iron 30 yards longer than Nicklaus could is because they're playing a 7 iron labeled as a 9 iron.

So, every time Tiger hits his 270 yard 2 iron stinger he ####s all over your idiotic statement that "he couldn't hit a 1-iron".

FYI, video analysis of Jack's swing would estimate his swing speed in his prime at about 110-115 mph. Today most tour players are over 120. That has nothing to do with the type of club they are swinging.

This kind of reminds me of TSP thread where it's argued that the 2013 Jags would beat the 1972 Dolphins. And they simply assume well if somehow the Dolphins were magically transported to this place and time and were made to play in 2013 rules, with their getting stuck with old training routines and old playbooks, yadayada, while the Jags get all the modern conveniences, the Jags would win 62-7. Society advances it's true (is Ben Johnson greater than Jesse Owens? No IMO...) but greatness has to be measured in its time. Nicklaus was a physical freak for his time, he's still a marvel; it's an open question how Woods was so dominant for the period that he was, but something has happened. There's a lot we don't know about the guy, one day things will come out, more will be learned, but greatness is written over the long haul and it's measured within one's time and in the end when all is said and done I don't even know if Woods will even be the greatest of his generation.

You gotta be kidding.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One thing not addressed in these comparisons is equipment. With golf you can actually see how good someone would be with clubs & balls from the 1960's and 1970. The clubs could be manufactured exactly as they were back then. You give those clubs to guys that are at the top of the game now and they will quickly find out how great Nicklaus was. Let them use them for years and find out that most if not all would be at the level of guys like Larry Zeigler, Bruce Crampton and Peter Oosterhuis. THAT is why there were so few competitors back then. It was a lot harder to be good. Tiger wouldn't even be able to get off the tee with a 1970s driver. Hit a 1 iron like Jack could. No ####### way.

In golf parlance, we call this a whiff.

That's because you don't know jack ####. You do know it's true however. It's the reason there are so many good to great players. Simply take the clubs yourself, clown, and you would find out how bad you suck with a driver 1/3 the size of the driver you currently use. If you think you will be just as good, you are full of ####.

No. You don't know jack #### is more like it. The technology of blade irons has changed little from the 1960s. Of course you can make the case with cavity backs, but very few tour players play them. However, anyone playing a blade on today's tour would be able to play an old McGregor with no issues at all. The only REAL change in today's irons is that they've all been de-lofted. A 2-iron today is the same loft that a 1-iron was in 1970. A 9 iron in 1970 was 48 degrees. Today a 9 iron is 42 degrees. The reason today's golfers can hit a 9 iron 30 yards longer than Nicklaus could is because they're playing a 7 iron labeled as a 9 iron.

So, every time Tiger hits his 270 yard 2 iron stinger he ####s all over your idiotic statement that "he couldn't hit a 1-iron".

FYI, video analysis of Jack's swing would estimate his swing speed in his prime at about 110-115 mph. Today most tour players are over 120. That has nothing to do with the type of club they are swinging.

This kind of reminds me of TSP thread where it's argued that the 2013 Jags would beat the 1972 Dolphins. And they simply assume well if somehow the Dolphins were magically transported to this place and time and were made to play in 2013 rules, with their getting stuck with old training routines and old playbooks, yadayada, while the Jags get all the modern conveniences, the Jags would win 62-7. Society advances it's true (is Ben Johnson greater than Jesse Owens? No IMO...) but greatness has to be measured in its time. Nicklaus was a physical freak for his time, he's still a marvel; it's an open question how Woods was so dominant for the period that he was, but something has happened. There's a lot we don't know about the guy, one day things will come out, more will be learned, but greatness is written over the long haul and it's measured within one's time and in the end when all is said and done I don't even know if Woods will even be the greatest of his generation.

You gotta be kidding.

I know what you mean, that sounds like a stretch at first blush. I'm talking years from now and I said I (we) don't know right now how his legacy will look. His last major was 2008. He has a 12 years span from 1997-2008, in which he was a streak of light, a comet. If he doesn't win another major, even with all the tourney wins, it will be before and after. When he's passed away and gone I don't think any of us know now what will be learned about him, how he won, or how the other golfers of his generation will appear in the rear view. Lots of chapters to be written.

 

[mr roboto]

^You've got to be kidding me. You think in the next 10 years any of the following: Vijay, Duval, Mickleson, Sergio, etc is going to win enough majors to supplant Tiger? The young guns now are not in Tiger's generation. HTH.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's ok, granted, maybe it was trying to build a bridge too far.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Too much silliness imo.

I think the Tigerlovers have had too much kook-aid over the years, but Tiger is the best golfer we have seen play - he was better than Jack. Jack had a longer career, but in terms of best golf - its Tiger in a walk. Someone will come along who is better than Tiger - and there are a number of golfers who are better than Tiger right now - but none who have yet to approach Tiger's prime. Someday.

There is nobody in his generation that is close - I love Mickelson, but he is a distant 2nd in this generation.

 

[DiStefano]

OUT @ Bay Hillhttp://www.tigerwoods.com/news/2014/03/18/69554590/tiger-to-miss-arnold-palmer-invitational-due-to-back-spasms/

There's where the real nuthuggers hang.

Sucks. Weekends are so much less interesting without him in it.

I still don't understand. I know back problems can be brutal, but for a pro athlete getting the best care money can buy, you'd think they could sort this out.

Ive never had back problems and have always been a reasonably active dude. Then one day I don't even know what happened, I assume a pulled muscle, but it was excruciating to walk or to even get out of bed to piss. A week later after bed rest and being careful to move as little as possible, the pain and immobility were 98% gone. The stress I put on my back compared to Tiger, and his schedule, and the physical toll of swinging a golf club millions of times from the moment his toddler hands could grip a club until thousands of days later, I'm surprised he can still swing a club.

True. But he isn't the only guy on the tour who started swinging a club as a toddler. However, he may have gotten more deeply into muscle building in his training (let alone the Seals' thing), and that may have taken its toll.

 

[Joe T]

It's funny to see the movement of the goal posts by the Tiger nuthuggers. Now that it's become painfully obvious that Tiger is not going to break Nicklaus's major record, let's turn our attention to the fact that Jack had no competition. Classic

Exactly.

Golf's greatest is measured by one thing: majors.

Good to see the tiger nerds have given up hope of that.

 

[John Bender]

It's funny to see the movement of the goal posts by the Tiger nuthuggers. Now that it's become painfully obvious that Tiger is not going to break Nicklaus's major record, let's turn our attention to the fact that Jack had no competition. Classic

Exactly.

Golf's greatest is measured by one thing: majors.

Good to see the tiger nerds have given up hope of that.

Honestly, as much as I love Tiger, thirded. Ridiculous display in here by Tiger fans

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I blame LaCava, he used to caddy for Couples who had major back issues. Too much of a coincidence for there not to be a connection.

 

[Short Corner]

^You've got to be kidding me. You think in the next 10 years any of the following: Vijay, Duval, Mickleson, Sergio, etc is going to win enough majors to supplant Tiger? The young guns now are not in Tiger's generation. HTH.

 

[JuniorNB]

It's funny to see the movement of the goal posts by the Tiger nuthuggers. Now that it's become painfully obvious that Tiger is not going to break Nicklaus's major record, let's turn our attention to the fact that Jack had no competition. Classic

Exactly.

Golf's greatest is measured by one thing: majors.

Good to see the tiger nerds have given up hope of that.

Well, now they have the back to blame. Part of Nicklaus' awesomeness was his longevity. That's a huge part of any all-time record. Tiger's constantly battling injuries. I'm sure it's related to his "supplementation". Which was a huge factor in why he was so dominant once upon a time. It came full circle.

 

[John Bender]

He'd better be healthy for the Masters. I think he's going to take the green jacket this year.

 

[mr roboto]

^You've got to be kidding me. You think in the next 10 years any of the following: Vijay, Duval, Mickleson, Sergio, etc is going to win enough majors to supplant Tiger? The young guns now are not in Tiger's generation. HTH.

Tell me which of his contemporaries will win 80 tournaments, 14 majors and 20% of their starts.

 

[Short Corner]

^You've got to be kidding me. You think in the next 10 years any of the following: Vijay, Duval, Mickleson, Sergio, etc is going to win enough majors to supplant Tiger? The young guns now are not in Tiger's generation. HTH.

Tell me which of his contemporaries will win 80 tournaments, 14 majors and 20% of their starts.

I just think it is funny that Tiger is playing so bad that you are going after this stinky bait.