For me this was the most exciting Masters EVER! It had everything, and so many people could have won it. As my name indicates I was cheering for my hero Seve, who for a short time was 3 clear after 13. But the best player on the day won. The Bear was brilliant, I will never forget watching it that night. RIP Seve.
How come that there is so little emotion in today's golf tournaments, such lack of charisma? Many great players around these days but clearly, Tiger Woods swearing and spitting on the green does not substitute for the intensity of e.g. this clip from Masters 86. Could the problem be that today's players have nothing but golf and money on their minds and thus totally lack the kind of personality we saw in the heydays of Nicklaus, Watson, Ballesteros, even Norman and Faldo?
True, mostly. When you can make millions never winning a single tournament, when your downside just isn't very down, I guess you don't feel the juice quite as much. That's why, although I absolutely think Woods is a scumbucket personally and can never match Nicklaus et al. as a true champion because of it, I do think it's true that Woods is the only guy in this generation to act like it absolutely kills him to lose, like he'll have to go home and sell sweaters if he doesn't win.
Put it this way: Last year, the 89th-ranked player on tour made over a million bucks. His name was Josh Teater. Ever hear of him? AT #125 was...Troy Merritt, with about $787K, just beating out Johnson Wagner at #126, with $753K. Luke Donald (a fine player, don't get me wrong) and Paul Casey (also good) won zero tournaments, but seven million between the two of them on the American tour alone. Jeff Overton, Bo Van Pelt, and Retief Goosen--no wins, $10M total.
...and also, I'm hitting the irons generally 10-15 yards farther, which is in proportion to the reduced lofts. Honestly, it's ridiculous. On an average 480-yard hole (level ground, no tailwind, not dry) that used to take, say, a driver and 4- or 5-iron or so to reach, I can hit driver and 7- or 8-iron, sometimes 9, now--25 years after my 20s. It's really out of control.
Jack is still the greatest, until Tiger surpasses him. Jack has said many times that Tiger will surpass his 18 majors. I know he doesn't want him to, but he knows in time, it will happen. One thing to note, Jack also admitted that he didn't win all 18 majors--"I just hung around until many were given to me". In other words, he played good to hang around until others collapses left him lifting the trophy.
As if Tiger hadn't "hung around until" several of his majors were given to him, too. Where do you want to start? With the fact that Tiger's main challengers are nowhere near the quality of the top guys Nicklaus faced? Or with the fact that Tiger has never come back from even a single stroke in the final round to win? You want to go back to the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines, for instance?
No, not really. Also what you need to know about Torrey: Rocco managed to hand Tiger a tie by failing to even really threaten for birdie on the last hole of regulation. Neither guy hit even 55% of the fairways that week, a sign of the weakness of the setup (if you miss that many fairways in an Open, you ought to be shooting 80, or worse). Of the top seven finishers, not ONE broke par, and four of the seven shot over par, including Tiger himself. (ct'd)
(Ct'd:) And then, once more, neither guy broke par in the 18-hole playoff; that is, yet again, if Tiger's opponent had shot even a single stroke under par, that would've been the tournament. Then, Rocco managed to hand it to Tiger a third time by bogeying the first playoff hole. And how? By using the same club and the same strategy that had put him in the left rough again and again on that very hole. Pathetic. But you knew it was coming, honestly, with Rocco fawning about...
...how happy he was just to be there playing the best player in the world, blah blah blah. I'd love for you to try to imagine a Snead saying that about Hogan, or Hogan about Snead, or Trevino about Nicklaus. Mediate makes one more birdie on 18 Sunday, one more birdie anytime on Monday, or just a simple fairway hit and a par on the sudden-death hole, and he wins or continues. You could go back to many of Woods' wins and this is what you see--somebody handing him the tournament.
I'm not saying TW didn't "deserve" the win; whoever shoots lowest automatically "deserves" it. And again, Woods can't help that he doesn't have guys like Snead, Nelson, Trevino, Watson, etc. pushing him and actually boosting his status. The original question was whether Nicklaus should be seen as being more likely than Woods to have other guys just hand him victories, and factually it's not true. In fact, I think you'd find it's true of every great player to some extent.
Not a problem here. Last time I was typing-tested I was at 93 wpm with one error or 88 with no errors, and you've got the 500-character limit, so it's just a minute here and there, is all. As for the content, it just flows straight from God through me, of course, through the genius mechanism. ;-)
Jack was every bit as good a putter, at least--but Tiger certainly has the most solid short game since Watson at his best, and before that, Nicklaus. Really, that and his iron play are the two reasons Woods dominated this generation, much more so than all the hype about his distance. I never thought I'd see another guy as unlikely to miss a five-footer that mattered as Nicklaus was, but Woods is (or at least was) it.
@cyph3r05 not till he beats his record. If he is the greatest golfer ever he will work thru everything that has happened and still do it. Right now it looks like he will be lucky to win 1 more major.
@willypyder totally agree. A 60 year old Watson nearly dispensed of Tigers "great competition" in the greatest test in golf at the British last year. Not only that he regularly made good showings inn many other evevts so it wasn't luck. I would submit that if Watson or Player were playing theses bums by the time they were Tigers age they would have at least as many majors. Nicklaus would have at least 20 an counting.
Bobby Jones won 13 majors by the age of 28, including the only Grand Slam ever won, then retired to spend more time with his wife and to practice law. Tiger: you blew it man.
and as far as Tiger is concerned, it will never be able to be said of him that he was a gentleman, a sportsman, a good father or a faithful husband. Whether he wins a dozen more majors or not, the fact that he lost the biggest job of his life will be his to ponder and the sportswriters' to rehash for the rest of his life. And as for his proverbial "intimidation factor", which seemed to have been his M.O. for success, it has vanished and will not return. He will have only his game to stand on.
@duckhunt08 you bring to light a point that no one else seems to ever acknowledge - in the media or otherwise. Watson's British Open run was impressive; but Nicklaus in 1998 was hobbling around on a hip with cartilage rubbing together that would require replacement in days. It's easy to talk about what could've or should've, but that - for my $ - will go down as one of the most remarkable achievements of his golfing lifetime. I only with there was more YouTube footage of it. What a Champion.
Not possible to compare different times, no video swing analysis back in Jack's day but all the good players today, and there are far more of them, are incredibly long and accurate. The courses are set up differently nowadays to compensate for the improvements in the game, narrower fairways, firmer greens etc. I don't look at Tiger's antics, what he does to achieve his aim is his business. Jack was a slow player in his day which would have been a great distraction to say, Tom Watson.
@duckhunt08 that's crap. You really think Mickelson, Singh, et al deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Watson, Palmer, Miller? Sure they're all bigger/stronger/hit farther, but they are all Weiskopf's...
Weiskopf had a better swing, hit it farther, did about everything better (except putt) than Jack, but Jack won 20 majors and Weiskopf 1. Why? Because Jack knew he was going to beat Tom, Tom knew Jack was going to beat him, and Jack knew that Tom knew Jack was going to beat him
@duckhunt08 So, that means Tom Watson's second place at the Open 2009 was the best achievement ever of a caddie :-) . Again, already mentioned that Jack made 6th place at the 1998 Masters at 58 years - do you need more proof? Besides, Tiger would probably have been excluded from tournament play in the "old days" due to continuous misconduct on the course...is he john Wayne or what, spitting on the green???
@duckhunt08 ....what a bunch of BS. Tiger grew up learning how to rip it as far as he can without any serious damage where those guys knew they had to swing at 80-85 % to hit the fairway. Equipment has alot to do with these "so-called great golfers" we are seeing today. I used to play competitive golf and I can tell you I havent duck-hooked a drive in twenty years because of equipment and am hitting it farther at age 48 then when I was 28. Tour avg was around 256 when I played....now its 280
People can argue all day about whether Jack or Tiger was the better golfer and they'll get nowhere. But it's clear who's the better husband, the better father, and the better man. In the final analysis, that's one helluva tie-breaker.
@buckfan1969 To further illustrate your point with which I agreed with last week, the next time 98 Masters Highlights are on The Golf Channel, watch the introduction of the Nicklaus plaque. Watch Mr. Nicklaus' grace and charm, then notice how choked up he gets simply saying "My wife, Barbara". Do you see Tiger in that vein? Me neither.
@CanadianGuitarist Like everyone else, I was a big fan of Tiger when he came on the tour. There's no question he's supremely talented. But over the years the club throwing, the profanity, and the grandstanding turned me off. I respect his golf talents, but I don't respect him as a human being, and I'd reached that conclusion before we heard of his 'problem'. Nicklaus has been a class act on the world stage for 50 years now. I'm glad to see at least you and I still think that matters.
ehh . . . that doesn't have much to do with who's the better golfer. But I think that, all things considered, Nicklaus still takes the cake, even if Tiger gets near him in majors . . . I think Nicklaus is mentally better suited for golf. Tiger lets his mistakes get in his head.
It does have something to do with it, because wrapped up in the idea of "better" is the idea of "champion," which in this game does include character. There simply is no other player in the top six or seven of all time who has done anything within a thousand miles of what Woods did, character-wise, and to some of us it still matters. Part of the game is supposed to be seeing past the illusion of importance and to realize that what matters is who you are while you're doing it.
Re who's better suited mentally, you definitely have a point, but in most respects Woods at his best is a man among boys when it comes to the current generation, since there are no more Hogans, Nelsons, Sneads, Players, Trevinos, Watsons, etc. in terms of mental toughness and cutthroat competitiveness. Woods is the only guy out there who acts like he'll have to go home and pump gas if he's terrible, the only guy who plays with that kind of urgency and killer instinct.
Has everything to do with being a better golfer--and the fact that you don't know that character matters in the game is a commentary on how little you know about it. TW's skill at the physical act of striking a ball and scoring low is unquestionable, but that's not all there is to being a golfer.
Here's a good question: If Woods had been convicted of child molestation, would you still want to consider him the best player ever?
@emncaity That's a loaded question. Molesting a child and being a young man with the most beautiful women in the world throwing themselves at you are two different things. I would wager that 95% of all men on this planet would have done the same thing he did provided they were put in the same situation. Apples and oranges emncaity.
Sure, they're different, but the point was to illustrate the principle and to push the argument to exactly what you're saying--that to many, adultery just isn't that big a deal. Humiliating your wife and children isn't that big a deal. Not in pro sports, not in our dumbed-down society. So if you approach golf from the perspective of just another pro sport, rather than from inside the character and traditions of the game, that's the conclusion you'll get to.
As for 95% of the men, etc., I might dispute your percentage but not the basic idea--that many guys would've done the same. But that's never an excuse for immoral or unethical behavior. Most people wouldn't call penalties on themselves when it would cost them thousands of dollars, either, or take care not to disturb an opponent who might beat them out of a championship. From the inside, this game demands that you should be different. Better.
First of all, there is no "tie"--not until Woods catches Nicklaus for majors or Snead for total wins. Even then, it won't really be a tie, because Woods' main challengers are not of the quality Nicklaus and Snead had to face--unless you want to make the case that Hogan and Nelson, or Player, Trevino, and Watson (for instance) were about the same as Mickelson and Els. (Still, that's not Woods' fault; he can only beat who's in front of him, which is why you have to go by record.)
And secondly, you should stop being so credulous about what you hear in the press and PR releases from the Tour, etc. The so-called "Tiger-proofing" of the course only made it easier for Tiger and players like him to win.
Besides, why would you go to such a lame argument anyway? Jack won the Masters six times. Tiger has won it four times. If they changed the course allegedly because of Tiger's four wins but not because of Nicklaus's six, what does that tell you?
@buckfan1969 OH COME ON HE'S THE BETTER GOLFER TO , 2ND BALLASTEROS, 3RD TIGER, REMEMBER in ballasteros case not always the best wins in sport, well anyway jack is clearly the best ever, tigers blown any chance in my book
@buckfan1969@buckfan1969 History will not ask who was the better husband/father.History will only ask to see the record books.As they say scorecards don't come with pictures and that's the way it should be in sports.History remembers Bobby Jones as one of the greatest golfers ever yet he cursed and swore in ways that would have put a truckdriver to shame and his temper took a close second.Walter Hagen loved booze AND women.Sports should be about ATHLETIC ability..PERIOD! otherwise its politics
@TheNYgolfer You're missing the point. First, it's impossible to compare athletes from different eras objectively. There's no right answer. That was my first point. Second, in the greater scheme of things, being a better husband and father is more important in my book than being the 'greatest' golfer of all time. That was my second point. In the final analysis, I'm more concerned with what my wife and kids will think of me than what some sports nut thinks after I'm dead.
I'd go further: In golf, it is somewhat possible to compare athletes from different eras, because you can look at same courses, compare scores, factor in course conditions and equipment changes, look more specifically at elements such as what irons were hit into which greens, etc. No absolute conclusions are possible, I guess, but you can get a lot closer than most people think you can.
@emncaity I agree with your first point; the character of an individual is important in golf; even in tournament golf. It's long been said if you want to learn about a man's character, play a round of golf with him and you'll see who he really is. On the second point on comparing golfers from different eras, I stand by my statement; it's as true about golf as it is the other sports. All any athlete can do is be the best of his era; after that it's a debate. But Jack's the better man by far.
But how do you answer the substantive argument that you can reach some fairly good approximation by comparing scores on the same courses, adjusting somewhat for differences in equipment and conditioning, etc.? The real miracle is that these guys today aren't averaging 68 a round or better, given the marketing-friendly setups (these guys are good!) and perfect to near-perfect conditions.
@emncaity I don't think you can empirically 'adjust' for the difference in equipment. The ball goes so much further today, the clubs make it go even further. Course conditions have changed. Watch an old 'Shell Wide World of Golf' and watch the putting; they had to whack the heck out of the ball to hit it further than 20'. We can debate who's better and never resolve the question; too many variables. But all we can say with certainty is how any particular golfer did vs. his competition.
We'll start with the point of agreement: It's true that the only _certain_ comparison is a guy versus his competition. But I do think approximate comparisons between generations are possible. For instance, when you back up the tees at Augusta to the point where guys are hitting only one or two clubs less into greens than the players of the 1950s through the 1970s, instead of five clubs less, and when you do that, the scores are about the same despite perfect greens...
...that gives you a broad idea of whether the breathless "these guys are the best ever" commentators have any leg to stand on whatsover. With better balls, much better greens and fairways, better performance off the irons, error-covering equipment, etc., when these guys are hitting somewhere close to the same club into the greens that Nicklaus or Hogan were and aren't breaking records every week, that tells you something. It's broad and approximate, but it's something.
Think about the Open at Torrey Pines with Woods and Mediate. Neither one even sniffed 60% of the fairways for the week--IN A U.S. OPEN--and yet they tied at the end of 72. 53% of the fairways in the Open in '63 or '74 would've earned you about an 84. The greens have been slower and softer in the Open for years, with rare exceptions. The all-exempt tour is also a huge, huge factor, making most days on the Tour about like a minitour birdie shootout and taking the fear out of it.
I could go on, but...the point is that it's not just that it's unknowable whether the current generation is the "best ever," as the Tour and all its sponsors have to market it as being, but that it's actually somewhat knowable that they are _not_. That's not to disparage their skill level, but I think we both know what happens if you make everybody play with persimmon, blades, and balata again...
You wouldn't see 13 players winning over $2M in 2010, nor would you see #125 Troy Merritt--yes, _that_ Troy Merritt--winning 3/4 of a million. You'd have to have the skill to hit it on a smaller face and actually hit a sweet spot, without technology to cover you. It's both absurd and insulting to hear these adolescent arguments about how today's players are far superior, merely because of the presumption that anything that happened before one's own generation _must_ be inferior.
@emncaity I can relate to your frustration with the younger generation believing the world was created when they were born. I've learned to ignore them; most of it is just the ignorance of youth. Some day, when they're older, some youngster will be punking on their old heroes the same way; perhaps then they'll understand.
That kind of serenity is why you're a better person than I am--or at least better able to tell when you're wasting your time on trying to teach pigs to sing. I mean, the young and stupid.
But you know, when I was a kid, even though Nicklaus was and always will be as much a hero as any sports figure can be, I didn't think for a minute that meant that he was clearly superior to Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Jones, et al. I think this culture is just more infantilized, or something.
@emncaity The biggest difference in today's culture is the ability to communicate instantly and personally, yet anonymously. That's led to a lot of infantile behavior, all right. Back in the day I don't recall comparing different generations of heroes very often. But the main difference is the forum; in a barroom argument you argued face to face with someone; out here it's anonymous and there are no consequences. Brings out the worst in people sometimes.
It seems to me the Internet age is a real pain in the ass not only for that reason, but also because it produces so many--SO many--instant experts who, without ever having seen a single player from a previous era, conclude that the top players today _must_ be better, that nobody really played golf until Tiger came along, etc....
When I used to bring up the fact that Billy Casper had won more tournaments and about as many majors as Tiger's leading competition, I'd say maybe 10 percent, maybe 20, had ever even heard of the guy. Few of them have any real idea who Snead was or that he won more tournaments than any other American player--and did it against Hogan and Nelson, and later Palmer, Player, and Nicklaus. But boy, are they experts anyway.
One of my all-time favorites is how a gaggle of Tiger-lovers swears he's by far the better "athlete" than guys like Nicklaus and Snead, when in fact Nicklaus was good enough to play freshman basketball at Ohio State after having starred on his high school team (and earlier, had been a good enough sprinter to post a time in junior high that would've finished top-3 last year in Ohio). Snead, of course, was a boxer, baseball player, and just about everything else...
Well, we should give it to him now, then, on spec.
The truth is, Tiger fanboys would use whatever measure favors their guy (total wins, majors, whatever), and they'll change the scale to do it. Not once in any era has anybody ever used "number of wins by a certain age" as a measure of being the all-time greatest player.
I'm not denigrating his playing ability. He's without question the best of his era, although his character as "champion" is a completely different question.
Also, the numbers you point to indicate the weakness of the top end of the field now. The fields are bigger, but the players at the top (short of Woods at his best) are not of the quality they were. Take Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Luke Donald, and a Kuchar, Watney, or Webb Simpson against the top four 1Bs in Snead's or Nicklaus' time (which would include, for starters, Hogan, Nelson, Demaret, Mangrum, Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Watson, et al.), and we'll see how it goes.
Yeah Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Ernie Els and other golfers from the modern era would've cleaned the clocks of those golfers from the olden days. The competition is much deeper than it was as the game has gone global, drawing the best players from Latin America, Asia, Europe, and even Africa and North America as opposed to just Europe and the USA like it was in the past. Its just simple math, and Tiger gets even more credit for holding his own against so many.
Well, if that's your position, I'm happy to let you defend it. Johnson, Mickleson, et al. clean the clocks of Hogan, Nelson, Trevino, etc.
It's not that I don't think current-era players aren't skilled. They are. But they lack the mental toughness and urgency of players like Hogan and the others. Among current players, only Tiger has it in full measure. In previous eras, you might go five or 10 deep before you ran out.
...and in fact had pro sports teams interested in him right up through his 20s. Watson was a crack athlete, too. And so on. But of course, none of these could hold a candle to Woods, who (they say) could've been "world-class" in any sport he chose, just because he looks like that in the commercials, even though he has no proven ability in anything else and these other guys _did_ prove it. (I'm inclined to think he'd be decent enough, too, but I'm just saying. Bill Brasky.)
Point is, facts and record don't matter, unless they back Tiger et al. If they don't, we're supposed to give him the title of "greatest ever" on spec, before he ever has the numbers, and to disregard the level of competition. (To be fair, even though I detest him personally, I do think if he passes the numbers you'd have to give him the title, simply because he can only beat who's in front of him; he can't help facing a comfortable generation with little killer instinct.)
Also, I'd make the case that in golf, it has always mattered to some extent who you are, because the game is supposed to be more than just another pro sport, and people whose knowledge of the game comes from being simply a fan of it like they are of other pro sports are not going to know this. Of course you can find anecdotal examples to the contrary, and NYgolfer thinks he has (he hasn't really, but anyhow), but that doesn't negate the basic, broad truth of it.
In fact, history already HAS asked who was the better husband and father, for many of us. Some care, some don't. Those whose relationship to golf is the same as it is to any other pro sport are not going to understand this. Too bad. Regardless, if it's a matter of record alone, Nicklaus and Snead still stand ahead of Woods, even in an era of less-than-stellar 1B players (you want to put up Mickelson and Johnson against Hogan and Nelson, or Palmer/Player, or Trevino/Watson?).
As for Jones...please. He displayed a temper in his youth, which he eventually learned to control, and became the highly literate and decent human being who was highly accomplished as an educated lawyer off the course. It's absolute rubbish to compare Jones' behavior or character with Woods'.
What's really telling is that you have to go back to the days of Hagen and of Jones' youth to find a top player with this kind of behavior. You won't find it with Snead, Nelson, Hogan, Middlecoff, Palmer, Player, Nicklaus, Trevino, Miller, Watson, or just about any #1-ranked player ever--and nothing Hagen is reputed to have done matches what Woods did.
That's not to disparage the enormity of TW's work ethic and killer instinct. He has it like nobody else in this generation.
the champion of champions nerves of titanium steel the greatest pressure putter of all time. if you looked up the word concentration or focus in the dictionary you'd see his picture. tigers the student jacks the teacher. golfs greatest. and one of sports greatest.
Jack is and always will be the greatest golfer and ambassador of the game ever known. If there would have been no Jack, there would not have been an Eldrick. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain cheating on his wife and kids...ooops, sorry Eldrick Fans that was a low blow.
I kind of wish Jack had stopped playing on the PGA Tour on this day. It was the perfect way to finish. He'd earned the right to fleece friends in money matches back home, and wait for the Champions Tour. Yes, you could argue that there might at the time have been another major in him, but he admitted that after this, he never took the game seriously as a top line competitor again.
@pinboyjorf ????? better than Tiger in pressure putting?? give me a break, Jacks pressure putts were 5 to 10 feet, and only a couple times. Tiger has had more pressure moments and way better results than Jack, also he didnt win by 12 at augusta, or win 4 straight majors, oh !!!! BTW whos tied in PGA tour titles? rethink yourself, Tiger beats Jack almost everytime, 4 out of 5 or six times, and dont come with the technnology, each one of them played with the technology available in their eras
Nicklaus's mind was better than anyones......... That's why he would kick Tiger's ass in a prime against prime match. Every putt Tiger would sink, Jack would put his ball on top of Tigers. Tiger's lack of maturity would not be able to take the mental pressure the Golden Bear would put on him. You could take any of the greats from the 50s-70s and put the modern golf ball in their hands and they would be champions today, the reverse would not be true.
Nicklaus's mind was better than anyones......... That's why he would kick Tiger's ass in a prime against prime match. Every putt Tiger would sink, Jack would put his ball on top of Tigers. Tiger's lack of maturity would not be able to take the mental pressure the Golden Bear would put on him. You could take any of the greats from the 50s-70s and put the modern golf ball in their hands and they would be champions today, the reverse would not be true.
His son/caddy Jackie said after Jack swung "Be right". Jack simply picks up his tee with the ball in the air and matter of factly says "It is"....He's the greatest golfer of all time, no one else is close.
@buffalobraves9 come on, Jack didnt win by 12 at Augusta !!!! or by 15 in Pebble Beach !!! TIGER JUST SMACKED THE HELL OUT OF EVERYONE, Jack never did that !!!
One of the greatest clutch shots in golf history and there are like 50 people on the sidewalk behind the bleachers walking by clueless like they are at disney land.
What a day. Remember it well, those final holes he seemed so cool and composed. Look at him after he hits it, down for the tee, no shouting, no roaring, no "get in the hole" or "be the number" horse shit, just a pro going about his business.
What a memorable shot. What a great golfer. Hard to say who is/was the best golfer of all time really, as there are too many greats. Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Woods.....heck who cares, each of them were great !!
Jack Nicklaus had a MUCH better golf swing and mechanics than Tiger. On this video they say he is hitting a 5 iron from about 175ish. With todays balls and clubs Tiger hits a 7 or 8 which makes the course play MUCH easier. If you want to see the difference, go play your local course from the white tees and then play 18 more from the back tees. It will add AT LEAST 5 strokes or more to your score.
Time has gone by, and a comparison between Woods and Nicklaus is not too different from a comparison between Nicklaus and Hogan, or, perhaps, Jones. the younger folks here might not remember the Balata balls from the sixties and seventies Jack played, but, believe me, these were soft and short and easily destroyed (just one thin swing). The equipment was very different between now and Jack's day. Try to get your hands on an old balata ball and play it. You'll be amazed.
@davidgee100 ive done it im 19 years old and i love old equipment i truely belive that golf should be played this way the feel off a persimmon driver is unreal!!! i love the older blade irons im talkin master models,fluid feels olde school baby bring tht stuff bk
@fs1natra True about the majors, but the broader measures of the men count, too. Jones grands slam in '30? He held a degree from Georgia Tech and an English degree from Harvard. He dominated the entire golfing world that year. That's greatness. Hogan's control of the ball flight in his prime? That was greatness. He came as close to the slam as he could as he couldn't attend the PGA thay year. These are great athletes - century-level athletes.
@Aman12399 he did like to hit a cut, but that hole location on 16 requires a high draw. Nicklaus could play a draw when necessary, and he played a pretty good one there.
tiger woods
self centred weak willed and greedy
nicklaus a man with no baggage
fs1natra 4 days ago
1-21-2012. He's not blue, he's only 72. Happy Birthday, Jack.
mkl62 5 days ago
For me this was the most exciting Masters EVER! It had everything, and so many people could have won it. As my name indicates I was cheering for my hero Seve, who for a short time was 3 clear after 13. But the best player on the day won. The Bear was brilliant, I will never forget watching it that night. RIP Seve.
Sevefan 2 weeks ago
his name is jack but sounds like squiggy
golfmaniac007 1 month ago
Could you imagine what would have happened if had ace the hole!!
mousstard 5 months ago
The greatest.
mengeee 6 months ago
audio and video way out of sync
63utuber 6 months ago
Man...how difficult is it to stick an approach shot on a sloping green like that? Impressive!
joanogiff 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check my comments page for information about the Pre-January 8th version of Inception.
jamestargetedindiv 6 months ago
Jack v. Tiger = Michael v. Lebron
moisty44 6 months ago
Who knows what Tiger will do, but PLEASE GOD, let Jack keep his majors record while he lives... A man of class who deserves to hold it!
1sababoy 8 months ago
@1sababoy
Here here..........
Totally right........A CLASS ABOVE THAT IGNORANT IDIOT WOODS!!!
hearts76100 7 months ago
@1sababoy On top of that, he achieved these majors playing while being colorblind! ;-)
1sababoy 6 months ago
un mito altro che woods
dragosputafuoco81 8 months ago
How come that there is so little emotion in today's golf tournaments, such lack of charisma? Many great players around these days but clearly, Tiger Woods swearing and spitting on the green does not substitute for the intensity of e.g. this clip from Masters 86. Could the problem be that today's players have nothing but golf and money on their minds and thus totally lack the kind of personality we saw in the heydays of Nicklaus, Watson, Ballesteros, even Norman and Faldo?
rorikjunior 8 months ago
@rorikjunior
True, mostly. When you can make millions never winning a single tournament, when your downside just isn't very down, I guess you don't feel the juice quite as much. That's why, although I absolutely think Woods is a scumbucket personally and can never match Nicklaus et al. as a true champion because of it, I do think it's true that Woods is the only guy in this generation to act like it absolutely kills him to lose, like he'll have to go home and sell sweaters if he doesn't win.
emncaity 6 months ago
@rorikjunior
Put it this way: Last year, the 89th-ranked player on tour made over a million bucks. His name was Josh Teater. Ever hear of him? AT #125 was...Troy Merritt, with about $787K, just beating out Johnson Wagner at #126, with $753K. Luke Donald (a fine player, don't get me wrong) and Paul Casey (also good) won zero tournaments, but seven million between the two of them on the American tour alone. Jeff Overton, Bo Van Pelt, and Retief Goosen--no wins, $10M total.
emncaity 6 months ago
Is the audio and video nonsynched for anybody else? I swear it didn't used to be. Just wondering...
emncaity 8 months ago
1966 They changed it because it was a goat pasture not because of Jack. Don't fool your self.
mijo1975 9 months ago
He said he hit the 5 iron. They were hitting 8 irons today on this hole. 4/10/11.
soup1322 9 months ago
@soup1322
Yup. And at 50, I'm hitting a driver 35-40 yards farther than I was at 25, as a plus-2 handicap player.
emncaity 9 months ago
@soup1322
...and also, I'm hitting the irons generally 10-15 yards farther, which is in proportion to the reduced lofts. Honestly, it's ridiculous. On an average 480-yard hole (level ground, no tailwind, not dry) that used to take, say, a driver and 4- or 5-iron or so to reach, I can hit driver and 7- or 8-iron, sometimes 9, now--25 years after my 20s. It's really out of control.
emncaity 9 months ago
Jack is still the greatest, until Tiger surpasses him. Jack has said many times that Tiger will surpass his 18 majors. I know he doesn't want him to, but he knows in time, it will happen. One thing to note, Jack also admitted that he didn't win all 18 majors--"I just hung around until many were given to me". In other words, he played good to hang around until others collapses left him lifting the trophy.
LGLG69 9 months ago
@LGLG69
Oh, brother...
As if Tiger hadn't "hung around until" several of his majors were given to him, too. Where do you want to start? With the fact that Tiger's main challengers are nowhere near the quality of the top guys Nicklaus faced? Or with the fact that Tiger has never come back from even a single stroke in the final round to win? You want to go back to the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines, for instance?
emncaity 9 months ago
@emncaity Torrey Pines on a broken leg and a torn ligament, and he still wins--that's all you need to know about Torrey Pines.
LGLG69 9 months ago
@LGLG69
No, not really. Also what you need to know about Torrey: Rocco managed to hand Tiger a tie by failing to even really threaten for birdie on the last hole of regulation. Neither guy hit even 55% of the fairways that week, a sign of the weakness of the setup (if you miss that many fairways in an Open, you ought to be shooting 80, or worse). Of the top seven finishers, not ONE broke par, and four of the seven shot over par, including Tiger himself. (ct'd)
emncaity 9 months ago
@LGLG69
(Ct'd:) And then, once more, neither guy broke par in the 18-hole playoff; that is, yet again, if Tiger's opponent had shot even a single stroke under par, that would've been the tournament. Then, Rocco managed to hand it to Tiger a third time by bogeying the first playoff hole. And how? By using the same club and the same strategy that had put him in the left rough again and again on that very hole. Pathetic. But you knew it was coming, honestly, with Rocco fawning about...
emncaity 9 months ago
@LGLG69
...how happy he was just to be there playing the best player in the world, blah blah blah. I'd love for you to try to imagine a Snead saying that about Hogan, or Hogan about Snead, or Trevino about Nicklaus. Mediate makes one more birdie on 18 Sunday, one more birdie anytime on Monday, or just a simple fairway hit and a par on the sudden-death hole, and he wins or continues. You could go back to many of Woods' wins and this is what you see--somebody handing him the tournament.
emncaity 9 months ago
@LGLG69
I'm not saying TW didn't "deserve" the win; whoever shoots lowest automatically "deserves" it. And again, Woods can't help that he doesn't have guys like Snead, Nelson, Trevino, Watson, etc. pushing him and actually boosting his status. The original question was whether Nicklaus should be seen as being more likely than Woods to have other guys just hand him victories, and factually it's not true. In fact, I think you'd find it's true of every great player to some extent.
emncaity 9 months ago
@emncaity Do you guys get to sleep inbetween writing these novels on YT? Just curious...:-)
rorikjunior 8 months ago
@rorikjunior
Not a problem here. Last time I was typing-tested I was at 93 wpm with one error or 88 with no errors, and you've got the 500-character limit, so it's just a minute here and there, is all. As for the content, it just flows straight from God through me, of course, through the genius mechanism. ;-)
emncaity 8 months ago
@rorikjun
nicklaus had to beat trevino etc
but tiger had to beat rw eaks in his prime.nuff said
fs1natra 8 months ago
willy when watson just missed winning the british open that bummed me out i was texting my boy all day and we thought it was going to happen
psu68born 9 months ago
the greatest day in golf history
psu68born 9 months ago
Jack never hit it all over the place like Tiger does now. Jack was a better ball striker, Tiger has the better short game.
Golfbum827 9 months ago
@Golfbum827
Jack was every bit as good a putter, at least--but Tiger certainly has the most solid short game since Watson at his best, and before that, Nicklaus. Really, that and his iron play are the two reasons Woods dominated this generation, much more so than all the hype about his distance. I never thought I'd see another guy as unlikely to miss a five-footer that mattered as Nicklaus was, but Woods is (or at least was) it.
emncaity 9 months ago
this is before retards yelled "get in the hole" oh the days
jkr8715 9 months ago 21
@jkr8715 listen more closely...someone did say it.
BlackSG1 5 months ago
@jkr8715
and also before the god awful baseball hats on the golfers heads
fs1natra 3 months ago
Jacks the best , hands down especially in class.
rvhawkeye 9 months ago 15
tiger is better than jack....sorry
cyph3r05 10 months ago
@cyph3r05
Its true, he is. But he needs to win those majors to secure it
rrrevan 9 months ago
@cyph3r05 not till he beats his record. If he is the greatest golfer ever he will work thru everything that has happened and still do it. Right now it looks like he will be lucky to win 1 more major.
Vertigo2903 2 months ago
@vballray7 I would agree if Tiger actually played against people who have game like Nicklaus did
rosieaasful 10 months ago
@willypyder totally agree. A 60 year old Watson nearly dispensed of Tigers "great competition" in the greatest test in golf at the British last year. Not only that he regularly made good showings inn many other evevts so it wasn't luck. I would submit that if Watson or Player were playing theses bums by the time they were Tigers age they would have at least as many majors. Nicklaus would have at least 20 an counting.
rosieaasful 10 months ago 2
why is the sync so epically off? lame! :-(
ckeilah 10 months ago 2
is that jim nantz?
msufandan 10 months ago
JACK = CLASS
fullonred1 10 months ago 2
and to hear people speak of Tiger as the greatest ever just makes me want to gag.
I never saw Mr Jones but I did see Jack:
pure class and a lot more Hall of Famers chasing him than those chokers getting out of Tiger's way (until recently: thank you Y.E. Yang)
willypdyer 10 months ago 2
Bobby Jones won 13 majors by the age of 28, including the only Grand Slam ever won, then retired to spend more time with his wife and to practice law. Tiger: you blew it man.
You could have retired: but NO.
willypdyer 10 months ago
the greatest there is, the greatest there was, the greatest there ever will be hit the shot in this video
Iwastherein1969 10 months ago
The sound being off is disappointing. Good upload though.
dickin585 10 months ago
Tiger has no shot of breaking or tying Jacks record. Case closed.
vballray7 10 months ago
Yes SIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mwells2683 10 months ago
some guys are just made to win golf events! What a shot! Check out my swing people!
mrmarky44 10 months ago
Jack....Best there ever was or ever will be. Not only an amazing competitor, but a class act who was always good for the game.
arand5551 10 months ago 3
and as far as Tiger is concerned, it will never be able to be said of him that he was a gentleman, a sportsman, a good father or a faithful husband. Whether he wins a dozen more majors or not, the fact that he lost the biggest job of his life will be his to ponder and the sportswriters' to rehash for the rest of his life. And as for his proverbial "intimidation factor", which seemed to have been his M.O. for success, it has vanished and will not return. He will have only his game to stand on.
rudycope1 10 months ago
@duckhunt08 you bring to light a point that no one else seems to ever acknowledge - in the media or otherwise. Watson's British Open run was impressive; but Nicklaus in 1998 was hobbling around on a hip with cartilage rubbing together that would require replacement in days. It's easy to talk about what could've or should've, but that - for my $ - will go down as one of the most remarkable achievements of his golfing lifetime. I only with there was more YouTube footage of it. What a Champion.
rudycope1 10 months ago
@rudycope1 Tiger won the U.S. Open on one leg
duckhunt08 10 months ago
Jack - the best golfer ever-period....Tiger go work on your demons
scu2r 10 months ago
Not possible to compare different times, no video swing analysis back in Jack's day but all the good players today, and there are far more of them, are incredibly long and accurate. The courses are set up differently nowadays to compensate for the improvements in the game, narrower fairways, firmer greens etc. I don't look at Tiger's antics, what he does to achieve his aim is his business. Jack was a slow player in his day which would have been a great distraction to say, Tom Watson.
Deaner707 11 months ago
Also: Guarantee that Jack from about 1968 or so would be hitting it out there with Bubba
simon0596 11 months ago
@duckhunt08 that's crap. You really think Mickelson, Singh, et al deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Watson, Palmer, Miller? Sure they're all bigger/stronger/hit farther, but they are all Weiskopf's...
Weiskopf had a better swing, hit it farther, did about everything better (except putt) than Jack, but Jack won 20 majors and Weiskopf 1. Why? Because Jack knew he was going to beat Tom, Tom knew Jack was going to beat him, and Jack knew that Tom knew Jack was going to beat him
simon0596 11 months ago
Tiger would have won 40 majors if he played during Jack's time. Jacks generation would be lucky to caddie for the players today.
duckhunt08 11 months ago
@duckhunt08 So, that means Tom Watson's second place at the Open 2009 was the best achievement ever of a caddie :-) . Again, already mentioned that Jack made 6th place at the 1998 Masters at 58 years - do you need more proof? Besides, Tiger would probably have been excluded from tournament play in the "old days" due to continuous misconduct on the course...is he john Wayne or what, spitting on the green???
rorikjunior 11 months ago
@duckhunt08 ....what a bunch of BS. Tiger grew up learning how to rip it as far as he can without any serious damage where those guys knew they had to swing at 80-85 % to hit the fairway. Equipment has alot to do with these "so-called great golfers" we are seeing today. I used to play competitive golf and I can tell you I havent duck-hooked a drive in twenty years because of equipment and am hitting it farther at age 48 then when I was 28. Tour avg was around 256 when I played....now its 280
baco62 11 months ago
woods will always be jacks bitch
180ballybollock 11 months ago
For a pic of Jacks leaderboard for all 4 rounds hole by hole 86 Masters.
augusta.com/masters/history/players/hbh/1986_hbh154.shtml
ronguell 1 year ago
People can argue all day about whether Jack or Tiger was the better golfer and they'll get nowhere. But it's clear who's the better husband, the better father, and the better man. In the final analysis, that's one helluva tie-breaker.
buckfan1969 1 year ago 43
@buckfan1969 I "liked" this comment, because there aren't 250 million "unquestionably agree" buttons.
CanadianGuitarist 1 year ago
@buckfan1969 To further illustrate your point with which I agreed with last week, the next time 98 Masters Highlights are on The Golf Channel, watch the introduction of the Nicklaus plaque. Watch Mr. Nicklaus' grace and charm, then notice how choked up he gets simply saying "My wife, Barbara". Do you see Tiger in that vein? Me neither.
CanadianGuitarist 11 months ago
@CanadianGuitarist Like everyone else, I was a big fan of Tiger when he came on the tour. There's no question he's supremely talented. But over the years the club throwing, the profanity, and the grandstanding turned me off. I respect his golf talents, but I don't respect him as a human being, and I'd reached that conclusion before we heard of his 'problem'. Nicklaus has been a class act on the world stage for 50 years now. I'm glad to see at least you and I still think that matters.
buckfan1969 11 months ago
@buckfan1969
ehh . . . that doesn't have much to do with who's the better golfer. But I think that, all things considered, Nicklaus still takes the cake, even if Tiger gets near him in majors . . . I think Nicklaus is mentally better suited for golf. Tiger lets his mistakes get in his head.
emmoiv 9 months ago 2
@emmoiv
It does have something to do with it, because wrapped up in the idea of "better" is the idea of "champion," which in this game does include character. There simply is no other player in the top six or seven of all time who has done anything within a thousand miles of what Woods did, character-wise, and to some of us it still matters. Part of the game is supposed to be seeing past the illusion of importance and to realize that what matters is who you are while you're doing it.
emncaity 9 months ago
@emmoiv
Re who's better suited mentally, you definitely have a point, but in most respects Woods at his best is a man among boys when it comes to the current generation, since there are no more Hogans, Nelsons, Sneads, Players, Trevinos, Watsons, etc. in terms of mental toughness and cutthroat competitiveness. Woods is the only guy out there who acts like he'll have to go home and pump gas if he's terrible, the only guy who plays with that kind of urgency and killer instinct.
emncaity 9 months ago
@buckfan1969
Lame dude.
justinp766 9 months ago
@buckfan1969
That has nothing to do with being a better golfer.
ArmyRob13 9 months ago
@ArmyRob13
Has everything to do with being a better golfer--and the fact that you don't know that character matters in the game is a commentary on how little you know about it. TW's skill at the physical act of striking a ball and scoring low is unquestionable, but that's not all there is to being a golfer.
Here's a good question: If Woods had been convicted of child molestation, would you still want to consider him the best player ever?
emncaity 9 months ago
@emncaity That's a loaded question. Molesting a child and being a young man with the most beautiful women in the world throwing themselves at you are two different things. I would wager that 95% of all men on this planet would have done the same thing he did provided they were put in the same situation. Apples and oranges emncaity.
ArmyRob13 9 months ago
@ArmyRob13
Sure, they're different, but the point was to illustrate the principle and to push the argument to exactly what you're saying--that to many, adultery just isn't that big a deal. Humiliating your wife and children isn't that big a deal. Not in pro sports, not in our dumbed-down society. So if you approach golf from the perspective of just another pro sport, rather than from inside the character and traditions of the game, that's the conclusion you'll get to.
emncaity 9 months ago
@ArmyRob13
As for 95% of the men, etc., I might dispute your percentage but not the basic idea--that many guys would've done the same. But that's never an excuse for immoral or unethical behavior. Most people wouldn't call penalties on themselves when it would cost them thousands of dollars, either, or take care not to disturb an opponent who might beat them out of a championship. From the inside, this game demands that you should be different. Better.
emncaity 9 months ago
@buckfan1969 Tie breaker...lol. Did they changed Augusta National of Jack? Nope.
mijo1975 9 months ago
@buckfan1969 Tie breaker...lol. Did they changed Augusta National because of Jack? Nope.
mijo1975 9 months ago
@mijo1975 Yes...1966
sretsam68 9 months ago
@mijo1975
First of all, there is no "tie"--not until Woods catches Nicklaus for majors or Snead for total wins. Even then, it won't really be a tie, because Woods' main challengers are not of the quality Nicklaus and Snead had to face--unless you want to make the case that Hogan and Nelson, or Player, Trevino, and Watson (for instance) were about the same as Mickelson and Els. (Still, that's not Woods' fault; he can only beat who's in front of him, which is why you have to go by record.)
emncaity 9 months ago
@mijo1975
And secondly, you should stop being so credulous about what you hear in the press and PR releases from the Tour, etc. The so-called "Tiger-proofing" of the course only made it easier for Tiger and players like him to win.
Besides, why would you go to such a lame argument anyway? Jack won the Masters six times. Tiger has won it four times. If they changed the course allegedly because of Tiger's four wins but not because of Nicklaus's six, what does that tell you?
emncaity 9 months ago
@buckfan1969 Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!
MrJMD37 9 months ago
@buckfan1969 OH COME ON HE'S THE BETTER GOLFER TO , 2ND BALLASTEROS, 3RD TIGER, REMEMBER in ballasteros case not always the best wins in sport, well anyway jack is clearly the best ever, tigers blown any chance in my book
ThePhil909 8 months ago
@buckfan1969 @buckfan1969 History will not ask who was the better husband/father.History will only ask to see the record books.As they say scorecards don't come with pictures and that's the way it should be in sports.History remembers Bobby Jones as one of the greatest golfers ever yet he cursed and swore in ways that would have put a truckdriver to shame and his temper took a close second.Walter Hagen loved booze AND women.Sports should be about ATHLETIC ability..PERIOD! otherwise its politics
TheNYgolfer 8 months ago
@TheNYgolfer You're missing the point. First, it's impossible to compare athletes from different eras objectively. There's no right answer. That was my first point. Second, in the greater scheme of things, being a better husband and father is more important in my book than being the 'greatest' golfer of all time. That was my second point. In the final analysis, I'm more concerned with what my wife and kids will think of me than what some sports nut thinks after I'm dead.
buckfan1969 8 months ago
@buckfan1969
I'd go further: In golf, it is somewhat possible to compare athletes from different eras, because you can look at same courses, compare scores, factor in course conditions and equipment changes, look more specifically at elements such as what irons were hit into which greens, etc. No absolute conclusions are possible, I guess, but you can get a lot closer than most people think you can.
emncaity 6 months ago
@emncaity I agree with your first point; the character of an individual is important in golf; even in tournament golf. It's long been said if you want to learn about a man's character, play a round of golf with him and you'll see who he really is. On the second point on comparing golfers from different eras, I stand by my statement; it's as true about golf as it is the other sports. All any athlete can do is be the best of his era; after that it's a debate. But Jack's the better man by far.
buckfan1969 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
But how do you answer the substantive argument that you can reach some fairly good approximation by comparing scores on the same courses, adjusting somewhat for differences in equipment and conditioning, etc.? The real miracle is that these guys today aren't averaging 68 a round or better, given the marketing-friendly setups (these guys are good!) and perfect to near-perfect conditions.
emncaity 6 months ago
@emncaity I don't think you can empirically 'adjust' for the difference in equipment. The ball goes so much further today, the clubs make it go even further. Course conditions have changed. Watch an old 'Shell Wide World of Golf' and watch the putting; they had to whack the heck out of the ball to hit it further than 20'. We can debate who's better and never resolve the question; too many variables. But all we can say with certainty is how any particular golfer did vs. his competition.
buckfan1969 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
We'll start with the point of agreement: It's true that the only _certain_ comparison is a guy versus his competition. But I do think approximate comparisons between generations are possible. For instance, when you back up the tees at Augusta to the point where guys are hitting only one or two clubs less into greens than the players of the 1950s through the 1970s, instead of five clubs less, and when you do that, the scores are about the same despite perfect greens...
emncaity 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
...that gives you a broad idea of whether the breathless "these guys are the best ever" commentators have any leg to stand on whatsover. With better balls, much better greens and fairways, better performance off the irons, error-covering equipment, etc., when these guys are hitting somewhere close to the same club into the greens that Nicklaus or Hogan were and aren't breaking records every week, that tells you something. It's broad and approximate, but it's something.
emncaity 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
Think about the Open at Torrey Pines with Woods and Mediate. Neither one even sniffed 60% of the fairways for the week--IN A U.S. OPEN--and yet they tied at the end of 72. 53% of the fairways in the Open in '63 or '74 would've earned you about an 84. The greens have been slower and softer in the Open for years, with rare exceptions. The all-exempt tour is also a huge, huge factor, making most days on the Tour about like a minitour birdie shootout and taking the fear out of it.
emncaity 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
I could go on, but...the point is that it's not just that it's unknowable whether the current generation is the "best ever," as the Tour and all its sponsors have to market it as being, but that it's actually somewhat knowable that they are _not_. That's not to disparage their skill level, but I think we both know what happens if you make everybody play with persimmon, blades, and balata again...
emncaity 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
You wouldn't see 13 players winning over $2M in 2010, nor would you see #125 Troy Merritt--yes, _that_ Troy Merritt--winning 3/4 of a million. You'd have to have the skill to hit it on a smaller face and actually hit a sweet spot, without technology to cover you. It's both absurd and insulting to hear these adolescent arguments about how today's players are far superior, merely because of the presumption that anything that happened before one's own generation _must_ be inferior.
emncaity 6 months ago
@emncaity I can relate to your frustration with the younger generation believing the world was created when they were born. I've learned to ignore them; most of it is just the ignorance of youth. Some day, when they're older, some youngster will be punking on their old heroes the same way; perhaps then they'll understand.
buckfan1969 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
That kind of serenity is why you're a better person than I am--or at least better able to tell when you're wasting your time on trying to teach pigs to sing. I mean, the young and stupid.
But you know, when I was a kid, even though Nicklaus was and always will be as much a hero as any sports figure can be, I didn't think for a minute that meant that he was clearly superior to Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Jones, et al. I think this culture is just more infantilized, or something.
emncaity 6 months ago
@emncaity The biggest difference in today's culture is the ability to communicate instantly and personally, yet anonymously. That's led to a lot of infantile behavior, all right. Back in the day I don't recall comparing different generations of heroes very often. But the main difference is the forum; in a barroom argument you argued face to face with someone; out here it's anonymous and there are no consequences. Brings out the worst in people sometimes.
buckfan1969 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
Without question. Maybe even in me, sometimes, although I doubt it. ;-)
emncaity 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
It seems to me the Internet age is a real pain in the ass not only for that reason, but also because it produces so many--SO many--instant experts who, without ever having seen a single player from a previous era, conclude that the top players today _must_ be better, that nobody really played golf until Tiger came along, etc....
emncaity 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
When I used to bring up the fact that Billy Casper had won more tournaments and about as many majors as Tiger's leading competition, I'd say maybe 10 percent, maybe 20, had ever even heard of the guy. Few of them have any real idea who Snead was or that he won more tournaments than any other American player--and did it against Hogan and Nelson, and later Palmer, Player, and Nicklaus. But boy, are they experts anyway.
emncaity 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
One of my all-time favorites is how a gaggle of Tiger-lovers swears he's by far the better "athlete" than guys like Nicklaus and Snead, when in fact Nicklaus was good enough to play freshman basketball at Ohio State after having starred on his high school team (and earlier, had been a good enough sprinter to post a time in junior high that would've finished top-3 last year in Ohio). Snead, of course, was a boxer, baseball player, and just about everything else...
emncaity 6 months ago
@emncaity
Tiger has one more majors than snead already, and he is only in his mid thirties. he also has more majors than Nicklaus had at this age.
wittenberg5 4 months ago
@wittenberg5
Well, we should give it to him now, then, on spec.
The truth is, Tiger fanboys would use whatever measure favors their guy (total wins, majors, whatever), and they'll change the scale to do it. Not once in any era has anybody ever used "number of wins by a certain age" as a measure of being the all-time greatest player.
I'm not denigrating his playing ability. He's without question the best of his era, although his character as "champion" is a completely different question.
emncaity 4 months ago
@wittenberg5
Also, the numbers you point to indicate the weakness of the top end of the field now. The fields are bigger, but the players at the top (short of Woods at his best) are not of the quality they were. Take Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Luke Donald, and a Kuchar, Watney, or Webb Simpson against the top four 1Bs in Snead's or Nicklaus' time (which would include, for starters, Hogan, Nelson, Demaret, Mangrum, Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Watson, et al.), and we'll see how it goes.
emncaity 4 months ago
@emncaity
Yeah Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Ernie Els and other golfers from the modern era would've cleaned the clocks of those golfers from the olden days. The competition is much deeper than it was as the game has gone global, drawing the best players from Latin America, Asia, Europe, and even Africa and North America as opposed to just Europe and the USA like it was in the past. Its just simple math, and Tiger gets even more credit for holding his own against so many.
wittenberg5 4 months ago
@wittenberg5
Well, if that's your position, I'm happy to let you defend it. Johnson, Mickleson, et al. clean the clocks of Hogan, Nelson, Trevino, etc.
It's not that I don't think current-era players aren't skilled. They are. But they lack the mental toughness and urgency of players like Hogan and the others. Among current players, only Tiger has it in full measure. In previous eras, you might go five or 10 deep before you ran out.
emncaity 4 months ago
@buckfan1969
...and in fact had pro sports teams interested in him right up through his 20s. Watson was a crack athlete, too. And so on. But of course, none of these could hold a candle to Woods, who (they say) could've been "world-class" in any sport he chose, just because he looks like that in the commercials, even though he has no proven ability in anything else and these other guys _did_ prove it. (I'm inclined to think he'd be decent enough, too, but I'm just saying. Bill Brasky.)
emncaity 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
Point is, facts and record don't matter, unless they back Tiger et al. If they don't, we're supposed to give him the title of "greatest ever" on spec, before he ever has the numbers, and to disregard the level of competition. (To be fair, even though I detest him personally, I do think if he passes the numbers you'd have to give him the title, simply because he can only beat who's in front of him; he can't help facing a comfortable generation with little killer instinct.)
emncaity 6 months ago
@buckfan1969
Also, I'd make the case that in golf, it has always mattered to some extent who you are, because the game is supposed to be more than just another pro sport, and people whose knowledge of the game comes from being simply a fan of it like they are of other pro sports are not going to know this. Of course you can find anecdotal examples to the contrary, and NYgolfer thinks he has (he hasn't really, but anyhow), but that doesn't negate the basic, broad truth of it.
emncaity 6 months ago
@TheNYgolfer
In fact, history already HAS asked who was the better husband and father, for many of us. Some care, some don't. Those whose relationship to golf is the same as it is to any other pro sport are not going to understand this. Too bad. Regardless, if it's a matter of record alone, Nicklaus and Snead still stand ahead of Woods, even in an era of less-than-stellar 1B players (you want to put up Mickelson and Johnson against Hogan and Nelson, or Palmer/Player, or Trevino/Watson?).
emncaity 6 months ago
@TheNYgolfer
As for Jones...please. He displayed a temper in his youth, which he eventually learned to control, and became the highly literate and decent human being who was highly accomplished as an educated lawyer off the course. It's absolute rubbish to compare Jones' behavior or character with Woods'.
emncaity 6 months ago
@TheNYgolfer
What's really telling is that you have to go back to the days of Hagen and of Jones' youth to find a top player with this kind of behavior. You won't find it with Snead, Nelson, Hogan, Middlecoff, Palmer, Player, Nicklaus, Trevino, Miller, Watson, or just about any #1-ranked player ever--and nothing Hagen is reputed to have done matches what Woods did.
That's not to disparage the enormity of TW's work ethic and killer instinct. He has it like nobody else in this generation.
emncaity 6 months ago
@buckfan1969 And of course, who is the best lover :)
fistard 7 months ago
the champion of champions nerves of titanium steel the greatest pressure putter of all time. if you looked up the word concentration or focus in the dictionary you'd see his picture. tigers the student jacks the teacher. golfs greatest. and one of sports greatest.
pinboyjorf 1 year ago
Jack is and always will be the greatest golfer and ambassador of the game ever known. If there would have been no Jack, there would not have been an Eldrick. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain cheating on his wife and kids...ooops, sorry Eldrick Fans that was a low blow.
buffalobraves9 1 year ago
I kind of wish Jack had stopped playing on the PGA Tour on this day. It was the perfect way to finish. He'd earned the right to fleece friends in money matches back home, and wait for the Champions Tour. Yes, you could argue that there might at the time have been another major in him, but he admitted that after this, he never took the game seriously as a top line competitor again.
azapro911 1 year ago
golfs greatest champion. nerves of titanium steel. greatest pressure putter of all time. tigers only the student jacks the teacher.
pinboyjorf 1 year ago
@pinboyjorf ????? better than Tiger in pressure putting?? give me a break, Jacks pressure putts were 5 to 10 feet, and only a couple times. Tiger has had more pressure moments and way better results than Jack, also he didnt win by 12 at augusta, or win 4 straight majors, oh !!!! BTW whos tied in PGA tour titles? rethink yourself, Tiger beats Jack almost everytime, 4 out of 5 or six times, and dont come with the technnology, each one of them played with the technology available in their eras
csindony 1 year ago
Tiger trumps Jack every time:
Has Jack:
Won 4 majors in a row? No
Youngest to win grand slam? No
Win US Open by 15 shots? No
Win US Open on broken leg? No
Win Masters by 12? No
19Noodle 1 year ago
@19Noodle
except in one respect
18 IS MORE THAN 14
fs1natra 5 months ago
Jack Nicklaus will go down in history as the worlds number 1
dazzamatta 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nicklaus's mind was better than anyones......... That's why he would kick Tiger's ass in a prime against prime match. Every putt Tiger would sink, Jack would put his ball on top of Tigers. Tiger's lack of maturity would not be able to take the mental pressure the Golden Bear would put on him. You could take any of the greats from the 50s-70s and put the modern golf ball in their hands and they would be champions today, the reverse would not be true.
sitarro55555 1 year ago
Nicklaus's mind was better than anyones......... That's why he would kick Tiger's ass in a prime against prime match. Every putt Tiger would sink, Jack would put his ball on top of Tigers. Tiger's lack of maturity would not be able to take the mental pressure the Golden Bear would put on him. You could take any of the greats from the 50s-70s and put the modern golf ball in their hands and they would be champions today, the reverse would not be true.
sitarro55555 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tree dating no cost naughty women here mworld5.info
ayashadilrukshi 1 year ago
Nicklaus would grind down opponents. Fairways and greens over and over.
bonnmystic 1 year ago
1. Jack
2. Arnie
3. Watson
4. Player
bobsmiththestud 1 year ago
@bobsmiththestud What, really? You have one of the four right, IMHO.
CanadianGuitarist 1 year ago
His son/caddy Jackie said after Jack swung "Be right". Jack simply picks up his tee with the ball in the air and matter of factly says "It is"....He's the greatest golfer of all time, no one else is close.
buffalobraves9 1 year ago
@buffalobraves9 come on, Jack didnt win by 12 at Augusta !!!! or by 15 in Pebble Beach !!! TIGER JUST SMACKED THE HELL OUT OF EVERYONE, Jack never did that !!!
csindony 1 year ago
Tiger couldn't carry this man's bag.
Yankeestonk 1 year ago
listen to that swing at impact - perfect contact!!!
brattycaz 1 year ago
best swing of all time folks...no doubt about it
webty 1 year ago
Wow he has a weird almost squirrel like voice.
MedicAlv1 1 year ago
"if i knew how Jack thought i would have won this tournament!" classic lol
deanw0rmer 1 year ago
One of the greatest clutch shots in golf history and there are like 50 people on the sidewalk behind the bleachers walking by clueless like they are at disney land.
jlonnon 1 year ago
What a day. Remember it well, those final holes he seemed so cool and composed. Look at him after he hits it, down for the tee, no shouting, no roaring, no "get in the hole" or "be the number" horse shit, just a pro going about his business.
Fuck you Tiger, Jack is best.
stevepising 1 year ago
reckon if he hadnt moved his tee he may have holed that!
rigbst 1 year ago 9
Tiger would destroy nicklaus, if they played each other in their primes
roravi 1 year ago
@roravi I knew Tiger was an adulterer, but I didn't realize he was also a murderer.
sretsam68 1 year ago
@roravi You are fucking crazy Tiger could clean his balls thats about it!!
Cord34 1 year ago
I heard the ball strike 10 sec he swung on the vid :-|
pinoyboy1964 1 year ago 2
synch sound with video
but thanks for posting
standupstella 1 year ago
Classic shot! Can Utube cink the audio with the footage? The audio is ahead about 10 seconds.
rickson48 1 year ago
I remember before the tourney the chances of him winning (from the press) was about zero.
After he won I saw a cartoon which showed a huge bear with reporters in his mouth/paws saying "Golden Bear ROARS" wish I had kept that
usmctanks1 1 year ago
best golfer ever
ITZUNTOUCHED135 1 year ago
What a memorable shot. What a great golfer. Hard to say who is/was the best golfer of all time really, as there are too many greats. Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Woods.....heck who cares, each of them were great !!
cnauta70 1 year ago
Jack Nicklaus had a MUCH better golf swing and mechanics than Tiger. On this video they say he is hitting a 5 iron from about 175ish. With todays balls and clubs Tiger hits a 7 or 8 which makes the course play MUCH easier. If you want to see the difference, go play your local course from the white tees and then play 18 more from the back tees. It will add AT LEAST 5 strokes or more to your score.
bryanhfs 1 year ago
@bryanhfs ur absolutly correct. i usually play back tees at my home club but its only 6700 so i only use 3i or less if i want to make it feel longer.
pipergolf 1 year ago
@bryanhfs
It's why the golf course are longer today than they were at that day, It is still the same game. Yes he would hit further, further like tiger woods.
nojomen2 1 year ago
"The Golden Bear" The greatest golfer who has ever lived. Tiger will "never" match his major championships.
GeorgiaDawgs804 1 year ago
@GeorgiaDawgs804 jack nicklaus = the golden bear ...tiger woods = the golden shower... need i say more
biunyia 1 year ago
In the "good ole days" of Jack, Tiger would be fighting to carry Jack's clubs !! His 6 Green jackets will rule for another generation.
07outty800 1 year ago
Tiger on his worst day could destroy this old curmudgeon
draber12 1 year ago
@draber12 He should. Nicklaus is 70 with a false hip.
sretsam68 1 year ago
@draber12 Jack head to head with Tiger in his prime would kill him.
GeorgiaDawgs804 1 year ago
This sucks, the video and audio are not even matched up.
lonstar70 1 year ago
Jack is GOD.
GITTUCK77 1 year ago 3
Jack has more class is a better playeer than Tiger and is a smarter person becuase he never got caught boning broads!
alvanson 1 year ago 3
Time has gone by, and a comparison between Woods and Nicklaus is not too different from a comparison between Nicklaus and Hogan, or, perhaps, Jones. the younger folks here might not remember the Balata balls from the sixties and seventies Jack played, but, believe me, these were soft and short and easily destroyed (just one thin swing). The equipment was very different between now and Jack's day. Try to get your hands on an old balata ball and play it. You'll be amazed.
davidgee100 1 year ago
@davidgee100 ive done it im 19 years old and i love old equipment i truely belive that golf should be played this way the feel off a persimmon driver is unreal!!! i love the older blade irons im talkin master models,fluid feels olde school baby bring tht stuff bk
kirklazerus 1 year ago
"comparison between Nicklaus and Hogan, or, perhaps, Jones"
THE BALD FACTS NICKLAUS WON 11 MAJORS MORE THAN HOGAN AND 7 MORE THAN JONES = A QUANTAM LEAP IN FRONT
taken from mark shaws book on nicklaus
fs1natra 1 year ago
@fs1natra True about the majors, but the broader measures of the men count, too. Jones grands slam in '30? He held a degree from Georgia Tech and an English degree from Harvard. He dominated the entire golfing world that year. That's greatness. Hogan's control of the ball flight in his prime? That was greatness. He came as close to the slam as he could as he couldn't attend the PGA thay year. These are great athletes - century-level athletes.
bonnmystic 1 year ago
The best the game has ever known.
crispybeak 2 years ago
damn it, why isnt the audio in sync?
sqwis 2 years ago
#1 for so many reasons
nicklausfan1963 2 years ago
i thought he liked to hit a cut....?
Aman12399 2 years ago
@Aman12399 he did like to hit a cut, but that hole location on 16 requires a high draw. Nicklaus could play a draw when necessary, and he played a pretty good one there.
earthshine2k 2 years ago