No I don’t make the mistake of the mental aspect of golf. It is quite simple by the numbers. Three times as many golfers play today as back then. More can start younger than before with quality instruction due to the number of quality instructors available today compared to before. Domination today is way more difficult. That takes nothing away from Jack’s greatness. And sorry, I don’t believe if Jack was British you would be this adamant.
My Mount Rushmore of all around American athletes is....
- Thread starter SEPATOPTEN
- Start date
Forget it man. You're talking to the wall. This Dailybuck guy doesn't realize that no one - including myself - is putting down Jack (my favorite alltime) and Tiger's accomplishments just that it's much. much harder to dominate today because of the worldwide number of great golfers. And again, I'm an OLD fart
He's my grandfather - part 2 - who would go on a rant about Bobby Jones every time I would bring up how really good Jack, Arnie, and Gary Player were..... and go back and look and you'll see that Bobby Jones was even more - far more - dominant than Nicklaus or Woods. Someone posted that he won 13 majors in 8 years. He retired around 28 or 29 years old. But the game goes on and the competition increased as the 60s and 70s came into play - just like today
That was me about 13 majors in 8 years but some were US Am titles. I agree that Jones was the most dominant with his peers ever, but I would not extrapolate that out that he would have the same dominance today.
I am equally adamant about Tiger. For some reason the discussion verred to Nicklaus. in any event, over time they have proved to be way more mentally tougher and clutch over time than any of today's golfers in addition to their amazing skills.
Last edited:
Good for you. Yes, if it makes you happy, both would absolutely wax the WORLDWIDE PGA players today. Good God. Come to the 21st century with the rest of us
Johnny Miller was correct when he said Nicklaus was the greatest golfer ever because he won 18 majors playing against other players who also won multiple majors who unlike many of the golfers Tiger beat weren’t intimidated by him.
Not a very convincing argument. Sorry. Easier to win multiple majors back then due to my argument above. To say good players were intimidated by Tiger sounds like an endorsement for Tiger. All I am saying is Jack wouldn’t have dominated as much today as back then.
If we're talking best athletes not best player in their sport there's countless guys, probably all, that are better athletes simply because of how they train today. Just being realistic. Jim Brown for example is amazing but is he even close to Barkley or someone like Barry Sanders. What about Tyreek Hill who would smash any of them running a 40 or 100m. Even someone like Lamar Jackson, who's average as a QB IMO, is an elite athlete. The "title" of this is just wrong.
Huh? There aren't a lot of 6-6 215 lb successful baseball players who pick up a bat for the first time in 20 years and can play AA baseball. Interestingly, Tito Fancona (who will be in the baseball HoF some day) managed Jordan at AA. He says that had MJ started younger, he'd have been a major leaguer.
he also shared this story of a time the team was shooting baskets at a hotel and a couple of dudes challenged them to a basketball game.
Cleveland’s Terry Francona shares hilarious story from his time managing NBA legend Michael Jordan
With a resurgence of interest again for Michael Jordan, thanks to the 10-part TV series “The Last Dance,” Cleveland Indians manager Terry Francona decided to share his unique connection to the NBA legend.
VaTech's Cole Beck (football and track) just crushed Tyreek Hill's best official 100m time (10.19) at the NCAA East Preliminary Qualifier running a 9.87 (the fastest time run by a caucasian in history) and qualifying for the NCAA National Meet - and officially making him the fastest football player in the world. So I guess this clearly establishes Cole Beck as one of the Greatest Athletes of All Time by your reckoning. HERE'S A HOTLINK TO THE ARTICLE.
I read something on this. Beck ran the fastest 100m in a time that is better than any causasion in history. However, he didn't even win the heat for the NCAA East Preliminary Qualifier. He ran a 9.87 and the world record is 9.58.
He ran the second fastest time at the Eastern Qualifier. The winner De'Marcus Fleming (LSU) won in 9.85 (i.e., 2/100 of a second faster). Here is a HOTLINK TO EASTERN 100M QUALIFIER.
In addition, the Eastern Qualifier had 4 times that tied or beat the best Western Qualifier time of 9.92 (HOTLINK TO WESTERN QUALIFIER TIMES FOR 100M).
IOW, he goes into the NCAA National Meet with the 2nd fastest qualifying time (-2/100 of second off best qualifying time) and one of the favorites.
Absolutely idiotic post. Your main a
How many truly great golfers are there today?
Nicklaus using today's equipment would be silly good - the forged irons and persimmon woods (and titleist balls) Nicklaus used were state-of-the art for their day, but pale in comparison to to today's equipment - especially in regards to the length, accuracy, compensation for off-center strikes, amount of spin that can be put on the ball, etc.....
Nicklaus' average scoring would be greatly improved with today's equipment.... and contrary to what these people are saying, his average scoring per round in majors holds up extremely well over time. Scoring average is what matters when measuring players.
This is reflected in the fact that Nicklaus not only has more Major victories than Tiger, but Nicklaus also had 19 2nd Place finishes in Majors - Tiger? Six.
Nicklaus had 48 3rd place finishes in Majors..... Tiger? 24.
Nicklaus also still holds record for Top 10 finishes in Majors with 73 - next is Sneed with 48. Tiger is tied for 6th with 48.
Last edited:
Lots to consider here.
First, Tiger screwed up his chances to eclipse Jack with his personal life. Jack was always a family man and I've never heard a single word about his off-the-course issues other than he didn't keep a very good diet.
Jack and his competition didn't have personal coaches, dietitians, private jets, and video aids. Today, they all hire coaches that measure spin rate, ball speed, launch angle...all kinds of stuff. While Jack had competition, it is nothing like today where hundreds of kids have access to similar equipment and coaching. When Jack was coming up, it was much easier to separate. And make no mistake, Jack had superior equipment at the time compared to his competition. He's said this many times.
Today, a hundred players can jump up and win a tournament. They are ALL good. In Jack's era, there were around two dozen serious players. Few could afford the car travel and strain on the family.
If there is any sport that has been tied to changes in equipment more than any other, it is golf. This isn't to say Jack or Tiger or any other is better, just that the eras are so vastly different based on the paradigm of when they played.
More players than ever, starting younger, with many more professionals to teach them, and you say idiotic post. While you quote Johnny Miller saying players weren’t intimidated by Jack so they are better than today’s players. Sound logic there by Johnny and you. Have a nice day.
Nonsense.... as I posted above, Nicklaus has the most Top 10s in Majors by a mile (73 Top Tens - next closest is 48 and it isn't Tiger. Tiger is way back at tied for 6th with 38 Top 10 finishes in Majors). Nicklaus has so many Top 10s due to the consistency of his average round scoring average. If Nicklaus was using today's balls and equipment, his scoring average would have gone down, not up - Nicklaus would have been scary good using today's balls and equipment, just scary good.
Here is an article on the topic from GolfDigest: HIT THE HOTLINK
Nonsensical post. Quantity over quality argument as evidenced by your statement that Tiger beat “good” golfers. Palmer and Player for example were not merely “good” players. In addition to winning 18 majors, Nicklaus was second in 19 other majors. The closest others have 10 and Tiger has a whopping 6. Nicklaus also finished in the Top 5 in my “ignorance” but one would expect one who many claim was the greatest ever to do better overall in majors irrespective of the level of the competition.
Do yourself a favor and check out Brandel Chamblee’s article in Golf magazine (sorry I couldn’t link(. Notes that Tiger’s three main rivals were Michelson, Els and Singh. (Most of Tiger’s wins in majors were in the late 90s and early 2000s). Their tournament winning percentages were 7, 3 and 5 respectively. Nicklaus main competitors were Palmer, Casper and Player. Their tournament winning percentages were 10, 9 and 6. Tom Watson’s winning percentage was also higher than anyone but Phil. As Chamblee notes, the competition Tiger was beating in majors simply wasn’t as good as the competition Jack was beating. As pointed out before, Nicklaus not only won 18 majors but finished second 19 times whereas Tiger has 6 runner up finishes. Jack also finished in the top 5 in majors 56 times. One would think the guy who many claim is the greatest golfer ever would have better overall success in majors than Tiger. You have a good day yourself.
I like Brandel but he is a traditionalist and is often wrong.
IMHO, there is simply no way that the competition Tiger faced was less than what Jack faced. Certainly not top to bottom. the training, equipment and travel just weren't available to the vast majority of players. Plus, there weren't that many people entering golf at a young age. During Jack's reign, golf was a rich man's sport and largely confined to the USA and the UK. Lots of the best young players never tried to tour or stopped after a couple of years because you left you family in Feb and didn't get back until October. You drove everywhere, couldn't get home between tournaments in a car, didn't have the funds to support two years of early tour expenses before you got into the tour and there wasn't a "corn-ferry" to start out.
today, millions of people have the opportunity to compete for a tour card. Back in those days it was probably less than 10,000 .
Completely disagree with you that today's players are better pure golfers - there is zero proof of this. Nicklaus, Weiskopf, Watson, Miller, Tom Purtzer...... are considered to have some of the purest swings ever (i.e., premier strikers of the ball). There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that today's player's are better strikers of the ball or able to produce lower scores using the same equipment and balls. The evidence suggests the diametric opposite - the players of Nicklaus' generation would have vastly improved scoring using today's equipment and balls (being able to "spin the ball) out of the "first cut" of rough with today's equipment and balls is a huge advantage in being able to score. Gary Player being the greatest "sand player" does not suddenly change simply because somebody is playing today... and that makes them better - that's nonsense, the swing and technique to produce the various types of sand shots you need to be a great sand-player have not changed. The equipment and balls have changed - if anything, Player would be an even better sand player today then he was in his time. Ditto putting..... ditto chipping. There is zero evidence suggesting today's players are better putters or chippers of the ball, there just isn't. The notion that someone is a better putter or chipper simply because they play today rather than several decades ago is just ridiculous.
I never said "pure golfers".
I said that top to bottom, there is better competition.
today, the pro game is one of distance. If you are not a long hitter, in most tournaments, you will struggle to compete. Some, like Bryson D, they hit it as far as they can and just deal with the consequences knowing that they will be less than 100 yards from the pin.
I refuse to believe that increasing the pool of potential players from tens of thousands to millions doesn't also represent greater competition.
I'll give you one more.....there is no way that Arnold Palmer could have competed on today's tour with his swing. There was no way for him to be as consistent as today's players need to be.
lastly, and probably most importantly, the equipment of the day is totally different. The elite players were the first to get elite balls and clubs. many of these were close to handmade. So they weren't mass-produced and mass shipped. The top players got the best equipment one or two years before everyone else. You look at perimeter weighting and the Ping eye2. These things were not available until the 80s. Square groves in 1985.
Now add in computer simulations, tracking of spin etc, just no way it could have been more competitive in the 60's and 70's as it is today.
We’re discussing the greatest athletes and over half the thread is about golfers…now that’s funny.
Nicklaus would still be Nicklaus. Even today he'd be longer than the other players. In his time he was 40 yards longer than the other players and accurate as well. Just like Woods would've always been great in any Era. Nicklaus would be the same.
Equipment really changed golf. saw a
70 year old Nicklaus td the story about one of the par 5s on the back at Augusta. When he was younger, he was the only player to come close to clearing the path that crosses the fairway. At 70 with the tees farther back, he could still clear the path.
Jack hit the controlled "high soft fade" with his long irons (including "the knife" - i.e., 1-Iron) better maybe than anyone in history. Could shape ball either direction depending on dogleg and wind-direction, but his preferred shot off the tee was the "Power Fade" (i.e., more-or-less a square strike with maybe a 5 yard fade).
