King Richard
Hello there
He's been wrong a few times. I on the other hand, am always right. Except for that one time...ah nevermind.
Golf
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
False Joe
Who cares.
I'm a huge fan of both Tiger and Jack...the bottom line is Tiger and Jack are the 2-best and then there is everyone else. Forget the era they played in, just on the simple fact of thier game, thier talents, and thier will to win.
You can also make the arguement that Bobby Jones is in the Jack and Tiger category. Jones played in the early 20's and won 13-majors then retired at the age of 28. If he kept on playing to atleast his 30's or even his 40's he would probably have won more majors than anyone who has or will ever play the game. Still 13 majors puts him right up there.
You can also make the arguement that Bobby Jones is in the Jack and Tiger category. Jones played in the early 20's and won 13-majors then retired at the age of 28. If he kept on playing to atleast his 30's or even his 40's he would probably have won more majors than anyone who has or will ever play the game. Still 13 majors puts him right up there.
Golf is the one sport that is fun and enoyable, even if you suck at it BAD. (Which I do.)
Arguing about whether or not it is a sport is meritless. Who cares? Are darts a fucking sport? Yes, because people get paid and sponsored to do it. Big fuckin' deal.
/goes back to watching the Swedish women's curling team
Arguing about whether or not it is a sport is meritless. Who cares? Are darts a fucking sport? Yes, because people get paid and sponsored to do it. Big fuckin' deal.
/goes back to watching the Swedish women's curling team
MasterOLightning
Optimator
See, I don't really think there is a steady #2-5 in the world right now. If anything cheapens what Woods is doing, it's that he has no rivals who he knows he has to compete with each week. No one steps up to the challenge on a regular basis. Nicklaus had better competition.
...as I said Nicklaus had a steady group of great competition. However, Nicklaus has said himself that Tiger has a better overall field to contend with week in week out... and he does have guys like Michelson, Els, Furyk, Scott, Oglivy, Vijay, etc, and a contigent of very good European players that have failed miserably here in the States, not Tigers fault.
Yeah, but Nicklaus had people like Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Fuzzy Zoeller, Tom Kite, Tom Watson, etc
If anything, the field is at least comparable
If anything, the field is at least comparable
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Nicklaus had to compete with more consistently quality players, but the balance point is that that was all the competition he had pretty much. Rarely was it that anyone outside of the widely recognized players made a run at a championship, whereas today the average player is of higher quality and thus there are more people in the running on average. So overall I would say that the fields are fairly even, with different characteristics as their strengths.
Exactly . I mentioned these players and thier level of competion before. If you drop Tiger in Jacks time period and put Jack (with the tech) in Tigers time period...they both succeed. They are clearly the two most talented, and fierce players and would have both succeeded in each others era.
King Richard
Hello there
Wow, Tiger has to have surgery on his knee again. According to the Golf channel, he's done for the year.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,699
- 9,670
- 113
MasterOLightning
Optimator
King Richard
Hello there
I root for him because he's clearly the most talented person on the golf course. Not only that, but he elevates everyone else's game with his presence alone. Most of the people on the tour are hacks compared to Tiger. I mean look at what he just did. A torn acl, two stress fractures in his tiba, and he still won. What does that say about his competition?
We finally agree on something.
When you get a chance to maybe see a once in a lifetime type of athlete like Tiger, you sitback and enjoy it, cause this guy is special.
His impact on the game is monumental, and overall people will miss it when he is not in these upcoming tournaments. I'll watch regardless, but the tv ratings will drop like Britneys undies without Tiger.
Those who say "I'm glad he is out-now others will have a chance to win"...don't forget, the USA will not have thier best player in this years Ryder Cup. Unless you root for the Euros', this is not a good thing. Without Tiger on the team maybe the US guys will rally together, strap a pair on and go out and win the Cup, who knows?
When you get a chance to maybe see a once in a lifetime type of athlete like Tiger, you sitback and enjoy it, cause this guy is special.
His impact on the game is monumental, and overall people will miss it when he is not in these upcoming tournaments. I'll watch regardless, but the tv ratings will drop like Britneys undies without Tiger.
Those who say "I'm glad he is out-now others will have a chance to win"...don't forget, the USA will not have thier best player in this years Ryder Cup. Unless you root for the Euros', this is not a good thing. Without Tiger on the team maybe the US guys will rally together, strap a pair on and go out and win the Cup, who knows?
byrne
Certavi et vici
I don't think Tiger's competition is significantly different to Nicklaus'. The difference is, Tiger is so demoralisingly good, the other players aren't getting anywhere near as much 'winning mentality' development as they otherwise would. Over the years he has faced some serious competition in Mickelson, Els, Duval, Singh, Goosen etc, just like Nicklaus did. All of them are unbelievable talents that have at one point or another been rolled by Tiger.
re: greatest sportsmen of all time; the answer to that is Don Bradman (cricket) - fact. No one comes close to dominating their sport as much. He is pretty much twice as good as any other player to have ever played. Further to that he walloped Babe Ruth in a home run hit out once (and he doesn't even play baseball) and was able to shoot his age in golf.
*edit* and the Don played in pretty much the worst conditions for batsmen in cricket's history with the quality of pitches and also the infamous bodyline series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bradman
re: greatest sportsmen of all time; the answer to that is Don Bradman (cricket) - fact. No one comes close to dominating their sport as much. He is pretty much twice as good as any other player to have ever played. Further to that he walloped Babe Ruth in a home run hit out once (and he doesn't even play baseball) and was able to shoot his age in golf.
*edit* and the Don played in pretty much the worst conditions for batsmen in cricket's history with the quality of pitches and also the infamous bodyline series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bradman
So, what would all of you golfers say is the hardest shot in golf?
I would say either a fairway bunker shot or a shot where the ball is buried in the rough.
I would say either a fairway bunker shot or a shot where the ball is buried in the rough.
King Richard
Hello there
I think buried in the rough is by far the hardest shot. Sand bunkers (depending on location) really aren't all that bad. If you get into grass and weeds it's damn near impossible to get it out, let alone make a good shot with it.
Similar threads
