Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Post by Whisp » Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:02:18


.. or thinks it's close between him & Jack, is probably mildly
retarded at best.  Absolutely clueless & shouldn't be posting on
RSG...
 
 
 

Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Post by Mike Daleck » Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:37:41

Quote:

> .. or thinks it's close between him & Jack, is probably mildly
> retarded at best.  Absolutely clueless & shouldn't be posting on
> RSG...

IMO, people who characterize others on RSG as "mildly retarded" because
they disagree are themselves clueless.

There are a number of reasons why discussions of "best ever" are moot,
but I wouldn't expect anyone who is "clueless" such as yourself to get
them.

Here are some in no particular order:

1.  You cannot compare players of different eras, period.  Competition
is different, conditions are different, equipment is different.  Trying
to use scores or anything else to do so doesn't equalize those factors,
ergo, such comparisons are useful only as conversation starters.

2.  "Best ever" requires a definition of such.  One might be domination
during a period of time.  Another might be total tournaments won, or
tournaments during a period of time, or total majors.  Since there are
multiple ways to define "best ever," there cannot be a definitive answer
to the question unless such a golfer is tops in *every* category.

Some argue Jack had more competition (Player, Trevino, Watson) than
Tiger.  Others say Tiger's so much better he has little.  I think the
answer is in between, but it's only my feeling about it.  I don't think
playing against players who accumulate 6 or 7 or 8 majors is playing
against inconsequential competition.

3.  Tiger has been *** for a period of time, but we do not know if
he can sustain this effort.  Jack sustained his effort over a long
period of time, accumulating 18 major titles.  Suppose Tiger falls in
love and loses his ardor for the game.  Suppose he finds other
priorities and finishes with, say, 12 majors total.

At that point, if you evaluated "best ever" by total majors, he wouldn't
be the best ever. You have to *sustain* it over time.  Tiger simply
hasn't done that.  Yet.  Maybe he will.

Comparisons, to the extent they are valid at all, require the distance
of time to be fair. We don't have that yet.  We don't know that someone
like Vijay, or Duval, or even Sergio might not discover the way to beat
Tiger head-to-head.  All we know is that they can't do it yet.  

But all that aside, anyone who attempts to stifle conversation by
insisting they are right and those who disagree are "mildly retarded" in
fact hasn't thought much about this issue at all.

Mike

PS:  I'm a Tiger fan.  I'm just not an idiot about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki  RSG-Wisconsin 2002 Info http://SportToday.org/
I do not patronize spammers.  Help keep RSG clean!  
Web Site:  http://SportToday.org/
RSG Roll Call:  http://SportToday.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Post by CALLAWAY C » Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:33:11

<<.. or thinks it's close between him & Jack, is probably mildly
retarded at best.  Absolutely clueless & shouldn't be posting on
RSG...>>
Even the people who think the competition is lame right now? Tiger is an
outstanding golfer playing at a very good time for him. I don't see any of
these other bums able to put even 2 good weeks together. Where was Duval? Els?
Singh? etc.etc. If there were no Tiger..........you'd have a bunch of bums
sharing wins for the year. This isn't the 60's, these guys SUCK and that's the
bottom line. Remember when everyone thought Tyson was the greatest heavyweight
who ever lived cause he knocked out a bunch of no name punks inside of a
minute? That's what Tiger is doing now. Now hop into your Tiger feety pajamas
and take a nap.

 
 
 

Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Post by dwjone » Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:42:25

the only way one can say that tiger is the best ever is to have him play
with the kind of equipment that the likes of bobby jones, ben hogan and jack
nicklaus had to play with. now tiger might end up winning more slams than
jack before all is said and done. does that make him better than nicklaus.
not necessarily. one has to look at the over all picture. look who nicklaus
had to compete with to win his titles. he was up against the likes of
palmer, player, travino, and watson all of whom are hall of fame golfers.
how many hall of fame golfers does tiger have to match up against in the
majors and who is in his prime(nick faldo is a hall of famer but he is on
the downside of his career and not a threat to tiger). the answer is simple
NONE. therefore based on competition how can anyone say that tiger is the
greater golfer. he has just come along in an era where there are no other
great golfers out there
 
 
 

Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Post by Left » Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:43:03

Quote:
> Even the people who think the competition is lame right now? Tiger is an
> outstanding golfer playing at a very good time for him. I don't see any of
> these other bums able to put even 2 good weeks together. Where was Duval?
Els?
> Singh? etc.etc. If there were no Tiger..........you'd have a bunch of bums
> sharing wins for the year. This isn't the 60's, these guys SUCK and that's
the
> bottom line. Remember when everyone thought Tyson was the greatest
heavyweight
> who ever lived cause he knocked out a bunch of no name punks inside of a
> minute? That's what Tiger is doing now. Now hop into your Tiger feety
pajamas
> and take a nap.

instead of sticking with the assumption that tiger is NOT that much better
than the field try and take a look at the fact that he might BE that much
better than the field... try stepping out of our myopic view of the world
and open your eyes..

If it is so friggin easy, why is it that nobody else has done some of these
things?  not Nicholson (hic) or Palmer, or Player or Trevino....

 
 
 

Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Post by Howard Braze » Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:07:12

"The best ever" hasn't been born yet.  When he starts winning people will
deny he's the "best ever", pointing to Tiger's 34 Major victories.
 
 
 

Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Post by Left » Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:30:40

Quote:
>the answer is simple
> NONE. therefore based on competition how can anyone say that tiger is the
> greater golfer. he has just come along in an era where there are no other
> great golfers out there

that is hog-wash...  there are plenty of great golfers out there..  Faldo,
Love III, Mickelson, Singh, etc...

they are the players, trevino's and palmers of OUR age..  you can't minimize
Tigers domination by just aying there is no great golfers out there..  Phil
has won TWENTY times...   and will win another TWENTY before he is 50 i
would have to guess...

 
 
 

Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Post by Larry Gorbe » Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:40:59


Quote:

> the only way one can say that tiger is the best ever is to have him play
> with the kind of equipment that the likes of bobby jones, ben hogan and jack
> nicklaus had to play with. now tiger might end up winning more slams than
> jack before all is said and done. does that make him better than nicklaus.
> not necessarily. one has to look at the over all picture. look who nicklaus
> had to compete with to win his titles. he was up against the likes of
> palmer, player, travino, and watson all of whom are hall of fame golfers.
> how many hall of fame golfers does tiger have to match up against in the
> majors and who is in his prime(nick faldo is a hall of famer but he is on
> the downside of his career and not a threat to tiger). the answer is simple
> NONE. therefore based on competition how can anyone say that tiger is the
> greater golfer. he has just come along in an era where there are no other
> great golfers out there

Two problems. The absence of other great golfers can't have given Tiger
the best score under par in all four majors (that's what par is for,
right?). I'm not aware that any other golfer has simultaneously held
even two of those.

Second, if you want Tiger to play with the old equipment, you better
also go back and make the courses as easy as they were then. Nicklaus
himself said back in 1997 that the course Tiger won his first Masters
on was much harder than the course Jack set the previous Masters
scoring record on --- and it's been cranked again, this year.

 
 
 

Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Post by \ » Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:07:03

If Tiger were to end up with, say, 12 or 13 majors, there would be a strong
argument that he had not eclipsed Nicklaus as the best ever.  However, very
few who believe that wins alone are the only measure of greatness ever place
Snead ahead of Nicklaus, yet Snead won considerably more tournaments than
Nicklaus.  So I think it's a little tough to base it on wins alone.

Nicklaus might have won more if not for Watson, Trevino and some others.
But we don't yet know whether Tiger's going to have someone come along and
deny him of some wins.  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Logic tells us yes, sooner or
later, he will.

Either way, if Tiger wins 12 or 13 majors, and eight of them come in TWO
DIFFERENT slams of some type (one a consecutive slam, one a Grand Slam),
then I think you've got a legitimate debate over who was better even if Jack
ends up with more.  Tiger's already eclipsed Jack in several "best ever"
categories, and despite Nicklaus's ability to sustain performance over a
long period of time, I don't think you can call him the best ever when it
comes to longevity.  That title clearly belongs to Snead.  And let's not
mistakenly assert that Jack's longevity parallelled his *** on TOUR.
There were stretches during his career when wins were scarce.

I imagine the same will be true for Tiger, who will find it more difficult
to win once he gets into his mid to late 30s and early 40s.  But that's
10-15 years away.

--

Randy

===================================================
                Troll intolerant.  I took the RSG 2002 Pledge.
               "Smoke 'em out ... dead or alive, I don't care."
                                           - G. Bush
===================================================
               I do not patronize those who advertise in RSG.
===================================================
      RSG-ATLANTA 2002 - www.YouGoGolf.com/rsga.org
                  Golf on the web - www.YouGoGolf.com
===================================================


Quote:

> > .. or thinks it's close between him & Jack, is probably mildly
> > retarded at best.  Absolutely clueless & shouldn't be posting on
> > RSG...

> IMO, people who characterize others on RSG as "mildly retarded" because
> they disagree are themselves clueless.

> There are a number of reasons why discussions of "best ever" are moot,
> but I wouldn't expect anyone who is "clueless" such as yourself to get
> them.

> Here are some in no particular order:

> 1.  You cannot compare players of different eras, period.  Competition
> is different, conditions are different, equipment is different.  Trying
> to use scores or anything else to do so doesn't equalize those factors,
> ergo, such comparisons are useful only as conversation starters.

> 2.  "Best ever" requires a definition of such.  One might be domination
> during a period of time.  Another might be total tournaments won, or
> tournaments during a period of time, or total majors.  Since there are
> multiple ways to define "best ever," there cannot be a definitive answer
> to the question unless such a golfer is tops in *every* category.

> Some argue Jack had more competition (Player, Trevino, Watson) than
> Tiger.  Others say Tiger's so much better he has little.  I think the
> answer is in between, but it's only my feeling about it.  I don't think
> playing against players who accumulate 6 or 7 or 8 majors is playing
> against inconsequential competition.

> 3.  Tiger has been *** for a period of time, but we do not know if
> he can sustain this effort.  Jack sustained his effort over a long
> period of time, accumulating 18 major titles.  Suppose Tiger falls in
> love and loses his ardor for the game.  Suppose he finds other
> priorities and finishes with, say, 12 majors total.

> At that point, if you evaluated "best ever" by total majors, he wouldn't
> be the best ever. You have to *sustain* it over time.  Tiger simply
> hasn't done that.  Yet.  Maybe he will.

> Comparisons, to the extent they are valid at all, require the distance
> of time to be fair. We don't have that yet.  We don't know that someone
> like Vijay, or Duval, or even Sergio might not discover the way to beat
> Tiger head-to-head.  All we know is that they can't do it yet.

> But all that aside, anyone who attempts to stifle conversation by
> insisting they are right and those who disagree are "mildly retarded" in
> fact hasn't thought much about this issue at all.

> Mike

> PS:  I'm a Tiger fan.  I'm just not an idiot about it.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki  RSG-Wisconsin 2002 Info http://SportToday.org/
> I do not patronize spammers.  Help keep RSG clean!
> Web Site:  http://SportToday.org/
> RSG Roll Call:  http://SportToday.org/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Anyone who thinks Tiger isn't the 'Best ever'....

Post by Bobby Knigh » Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:58:36

Quote:

>If Tiger were to end up with, say, 12 or 13 majors, there would be a strong
>argument that he had not eclipsed Nicklaus as the best ever.  However, very
>few who believe that wins alone are the only measure of greatness ever place
>Snead ahead of Nicklaus, yet Snead won considerably more tournaments than
>Nicklaus.  So I think it's a little tough to base it on wins alone.

Then, again, why is *best* always equated with the most wins?  IMHO the *best* is the most
talented, and wins/losses, whether majors or not, don't necessarily show that.  
  ___  
  \o  '  
   |    
  / \  
    .
"Someone likes every shot"
bk
--------------------------------------------
Troll intolerant. I took the RSG 2002 Pledge.
Ignore them and they'll go away.