|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
Legend [19578]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9348
Joined: 8/21/99
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [67817]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115455
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but... I say "O-H-
Apr 14, 2019, 2:53 PM
|
|
31-0"
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7191]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 20374
Joined: 8/18/06
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 2:59 PM
|
|
True, but Tiger just moved one step closer, and still has at least 3 Masters in that swing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9056]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 13815
Joined: 7/1/02
|
Yes, I fully agree - he's my favorite with......
Apr 14, 2019, 3:00 PM
|
|
Tiger a close 2nd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [90819]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 45503
Joined: 10/18/09
|
An ARNiE’s Army Fan here!
Apr 14, 2019, 3:41 PM
|
|
But he got passed today with only 5 Stein-Mart Green Jackets!
Like all & saw all 3 play at Masters Live!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5436]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 11913
Joined: 9/23/01
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 3:45 PM
|
|
Jacks not the best either. Bobby Jones
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [153]
TigerPulse: 31%
Posts: 269
Joined: 4/2/19
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 3:53 PM
|
|
Jack didn’t face anywhere near the competition there is today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 3:56 PM
|
|
Not even close. Probably really not even top 20. Players are way bigger and stronger now and there are tens of thosands more players today. Saying Jack is the best golfer is like saying Babe Ruth is the best baseball player of all time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10632]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9263
Joined: 12/29/06
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 4:03 PM
|
|
Jack's record speaks for itself. I don't think there is any question that he was the greatest. Tiger might displace him, but he hasn't to this point. If you look at Jack's second place and top five finishes he is even more remarkable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 4:14 PM
|
|
That's laughable. Not even close. He played in a different era with way less talent. Half of those guys he played against wouldnt even be on tour now. Jack might not even have 1 major if he played in this era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3825
Joined: 7/30/18
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 4:33 PM
|
|
If you follow that logic, Tiger won’t be considered that great either. Surely future talent will be better and stronger and more of them. It’s clear Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Hogan, Hagen were all exceptional. So is Woods. Give credit where it’s due. They all excelled in their era and that’s what matters.
You wouldn’t suggest in the future Clemson’s championships weren’t significant, In sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 4:40 PM
|
|
Tiger might not have won as many majors even in this era to be honest. There are 100's upon 100's of thousandds of more golfers now than there were when Tiger started. There are millions more around the world since Jack played.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1917]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 2141
Joined: 8/21/01
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 4:17 PM
[ in reply to Re: Good for Tiger,but... ] |
|
How do you know Babe wasn't the best?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 4:29 PM
|
|
Because he played vs all white guys and there is way bigger talent pool now with international players as well. All sports have progressed talent wise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3369]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 4591
Joined: 7/31/18
|
Re: Good for Tiger,but...
Apr 14, 2019, 4:32 PM
|
|
I don’t care about golf one way or another but in his prime Tiger was the Goat. If not for injuries and personal problems TW would have shattered that majors record. I mean he is only a few away after an 11 year battle. At 43 he def has a few more wins in him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
