King Richard
Hello there
Sorry but that is a retarded argument. They were all on an even playing field.
edit: Figures that the one time I don't read all of the posts someone beats me to a reply. Oh well, what nec said.
Golf
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
Sorry but that is a retarded argument. They were all on an even playing field.
edit: Figures that the one time I don't read all of the posts someone beats me to a reply. Oh well, what nec said.
I'm saying that between 1930 and 1970, technology didn't change much in golf. Since then, new technology has been created and improved upon at a very rapid rate. They didn't have clubheads that were 500 cubic centimeters back then. Ball technology wasn't as advanced as it is now, etc. Nicklaus was using inferior technology compared to golfers now. He used what he liked, not what was new or 'better' at the time. I think if you give Tiger the same technology, they would be equal or Nicklaus would be slightly better.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
But that is irrelevant, because Tiger's competitors use the same technology. The playing field is as even now as it was when Nicklaus played, because everyone had access to the same technology. Obviously a one to one comparison between Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus can't be done because of the difference of technology between the two, but within their respective generations, they can be compared to each other based on their competitors, for example, by how dominant they are. What I'm saying is that just because Tiger Woods uses more advanced technology doesn't mean he's winning more championships.
It makes it easier for him to win tournaments. I mean, 300 yards back in the 70s was a long drive. Now you have golfers hitting 300 on the fly and then it rolls 30-40 yards. I mean, you give him steel shafted, metal-headed woods (not the heads now that have titanium or other assorted alloys in them) and he probably would lose about 25-30 yards of distance easily. Granted, he's pretty flexible and can get a good amount of clubhead speed and rotation because of it, which is greatly attributable to how far the ball goes as well, so he might not.
But then you have the other side of the argument where some of his competitors use identical technology and can't hit it as far as he can because of a lesser degree of flexibility, upper body strength or what have you.
But then you have the other side of the argument where some of his competitors use identical technology and can't hit it as far as he can because of a lesser degree of flexibility, upper body strength or what have you.
King Richard
Hello there
You can't forget that everyone and their mother tries out for these tournaments too. Golf has done nothing but grow in popularity over the years, so the fields are massive, even more so than what Nicklaus had to deal with. That in itself reduces your chances of winning significantly.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Everybody playing today has the same resources. Therefore, everybody has the same chance of winning. Tiger wins because he's more skilled. This is very simple, and you're a smart man, Ozzman, so you should probably just agree with me here, because I'm right. Tiger isn't helped any more than any other player is or could be today. I doubt that he would be doing any worse in terms of winning if everybody today was using the technology of Jack Nicklaus' era.
King Richard
Hello there
Putting is definitely the hardest thing to do in golf. That and hitting out of the sand uphill from a fairway bunker
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Explain to me how everybody using the same technology gives Tiger Woods an advantage over everybody else using the same technology. Please. I would love to hear you explain this.
Ben_t
Member
I don't know how top put it any cleared than Dodens put it in his previous post.
But NO it doesn't make it easier for him to win tournaments. You say it yourself GOLFERS are now hitting further.
It's not like you have Tiger Woods playing with the technology of today back when Nicklaus was at his peak. That would obviously be an unfair advantage and you'd obviously be right that it makes him easier for him to win tournaments.
But you can still judge them based on their competitors in their respective eras (who all had/have access to the same technology) and compare their dominance among their peers.
Who would have been more succesful had they played during the same time we can't really say for sure but saying it's easier to win tournaments is totally wrong.
Edit: I shouldn't eat while typing...it slowed me down and so many posts happened in between.
rms
Active Member
idk why you cant see ur arguement is flawed. You could argue that I guess with a lower score overall compared to Nicklaus but in general wins, everyone has the same gear, so Tiger doesnt have the latest hot shit 3wood and everyone else is back in the 70s. I rly dont know why u cant see this, are u a big Nicklaus fanboy or something??
Ben_t
Member
Holy shit, hopefully you're not doing advanced financial stuff today. I'd be scared to know that you're managing my money. You seem kinda slow today.
Holy shit, hopefully you're not doing advanced financial stuff today. I'd be scared to know that you're managing my money. You seem kinda slow today.
I am quite tired. That statement just seemed redundant is all. Then again, I didn't major in English, so I get a mulligan here (LOL GOLF PUN!!)
I don't manage anyone's money, btw. I need a license to do that.
Ben_t
Member
Your argument regarding the technology is like saying Ovechkin wouldn't score as many goals if he had been playing in Maurice Richard's era because it's harder to shoot with a wooden stick. Since he has a graphite stick he has an unfair advantage when he's scoring goals now!
I didn't know who Ovechkin was until you said the word 'goals' and figured out you were talking about hockey.
I think rms is right in saying he scores lower than Nicklaus did because of the newer technology
Whatever. Fuck it. Dodens is right.
I think rms is right in saying he scores lower than Nicklaus did because of the newer technology
Whatever. Fuck it. Dodens is right.
k (You need to be wrong once, goddamnit)
Anyway
I know world rankings are there, but who would you all say are the #2-#5 golfers in the world?
This discussion will probably only apply to three or so people, but whatever
Anyway
I know world rankings are there, but who would you all say are the #2-#5 golfers in the world?
This discussion will probably only apply to three or so people, but whatever
Similar threads
