PatsFans.com - Mobile
PatsFans.com
Search

OT: Tiger Woods Injured in Car Crash

2020 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: N/A

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:

robertweathers

Chairman & CEO of Team Bill
PatsFans.com Supporter
No. Just no.

That's totally an intellectually bankrupt comparison. You're comparing Woods from age 20 to age 45 against Nicklaus from age 20 to age 65. If Woods is healthy and plays to the same age, then all those percentages would come down by a LOT. You'd add about 70 to 80 majors to his totals with a damn decent chance he wouldn't have won any of 'em.
Intellectually bankrupt? Settle down...

You need to look at the careers in their entirety and not cherry-pick years.

Jack chose to play after 86 and had three top 10 finishes. Thats on him.

Tiger chose to play and had one major win in 12 years. Thats also on him.

If you want to say Jack is better, go for it. I happen to agree with you.
 

Deus Irae

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
PatsFans.com Supporter
Jack had a longer career than Tiger has had so far. From the numbers, it also appears that Jack played more frequently on the tour. Jack's winning percentage in the majors fell as he aged. He still got invited; still played; but except for his great Masters victory in 1986 at the age of 46, no longer won. The last Masters in which he played was in 2005 at the age of 65. I assume that if Tiger comes out of this crash able to golf, that the same will happen to him. But I would agree that in his prime, Tiger was more unbeatable than Jack, yet likely won't be considered the greatest because of longevity issues.
Jack played against better high end players, though Tiger has played against a deeper field, and Jack also managed a lot more 2nd place finishes.
 

Joker

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
I wish it was a Mack truck loaded with granite that struck and obliterated the TMZ mobile spy vehicle with the fukkin' bloodsaucker CEO and entourage inside screaming to a dull SPLAT
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
PatsFans.com Supporter
Depends on what you are comparing.....

Jack
Masters: 45 starts, 37 cuts made, 15 Top 5s, 6 jackets
US: 44 starts, 35 cuts made, 11 Top 5s, 4 titles
Open: 38 starts, 32 cuts made, 16 Top 5s, 3 titles
PGA: 37 starts, 27 cuts made, 14 Top 5s, 5 titles
PGA Tour Starts: 586. Wins: 73, Top 2: 58, Top 3: 36

Tiger
Masters: 23 starts, 22 cuts made, 12 Top 5s, 5 jackets
US: 21 starts, 17 cuts made, 8 Top 5s, 4 titles
Open: 22 starts, 17 cuts made, 7 Top 5s, 3 titles
PGA: 21 starts, 18 cuts made, 6 Top 5s, 3 titles
PGA Tour Starts: 365, Wins: 82, Top 2: 21, Top 3, 19

Major Winning % per start: Jack- 11%, Tiger- 17%
Major Top 2 Finish % per start: Jack- 12%, Tiger- 8%
Major Top 5 Finish % per start: Jack- 34%, Tiger- 38%
Major Cuts Made: Jack-80%, Tiger- 85%
PGA Tour Winning %: Jack- 12%, Tiger- 22%
PGA Tour Top 2 %, Jack- 10%, Tiger- 6%
PGA Tour Top 3 % Jack- 6%, Tiger- 5%

Statistically, Tiger is superior. Jack won 3 more Majors in 77 more starts. Using Tiger's winning % if he had Jack's # of starts he'd have 28 Majors...but because he is the Gronk/Pedro/Bobby Orr of golf he doesn't.

With all that said, I think Jack had it tougher. Travel. Equipment. Competition. Courses were in rougher shape back then.

18 holes...match-play.....Augusta National.....Same equipment...In their primes...Jack wins 2 and 1.

The only argument for Tiger is he won some of those tournaments by so many strokes and seemed to be on a different playing field early in his career, but he wasn't able to sustain that dominance. In the end, Tiger's post-2000 career was basically half of Jack's career, so you're left with which is better: the much longer peak (Jack) or the spike of extreme domination (Tiger).

1614121957661.png

I think it's an easy call and Jack gets the GOAT crown. Every athlete goes into it trying to win the most majors; the sporting world uses that measure. It's like quarterbacks in Super Bowls; maybe a guy won more MVPs or was more dominant for some time, but at the beginning of their career, it was all about those rings, so it's just moving the goalposts to say something else is the better measure.

because he is the Gronk/Pedro/Bobby Orr of golf he doesn't.

This probably shouldn't matter, but it does to me regardless...Tiger injured himself doing stupid things in the offseason and took himself out of greatness with bunch of self-inflicted issues.

Gronk and Orr were greatly weakened by insanely physical contact sports; that is, by playing the style that made them great, it took a toll on their bodies. I'd like to see how long Tony Gonzalez or Travis Kelce would last taking that kind of beating, dragging defenders down, mauling d-linemen for an extra foot of space for his running back.

Pedro, with his tiny frame, never had a chance for Clemens or Ryan longevity, although it's remarkable how many wins he was able to rack up.

But regardless, it's just really hard to crown someone as The Goat or "The Boat" or whatever when that person had so much control over his physical well-being and recklessly screwed it up...not from the toll of the sport itself but bizarre off-field decisions.
 

Tottie

Third String But Playing on Special Teams
The only argument for Tiger is he won some of those tournaments by so many strokes and seemed to be on a different playing field early in his career, but he wasn't able to sustain that dominance. In the end, Tiger's post-2000 career was basically half of Jack's career, so you're left with which is better: the much longer peak (Jack) or the spike of extreme domination (Tiger).

View attachment 30735

I think it's an easy call and Jack gets the GOAT crown. Every athlete goes into it trying to win the most majors; the sporting world uses that measure. It's like quarterbacks in Super Bowls; maybe a guy won more MVPs or was more dominant for some time, but at the beginning of their career, it was all about those rings, so it's just moving the goalposts to say something else is the better measure.

because he is the Gronk/Pedro/Bobby Orr of golf he doesn't.

This probably shouldn't matter, but it does to me regardless...Tiger injured himself doing stupid things in the offseason and took himself out of greatness with bunch of self-inflicted issues.

Gronk and Orr were greatly weakened by insanely physical contact sports; that is, by playing the style that made them great, it took a toll on their bodies. I'd like to see how long Tony Gonzalez or Travis Kelce would last taking that kind of beating, dragging defenders down, mauling d-linemen for an extra foot of space for his running back.

Pedro, with his tiny frame, never had a chance for Clemens or Ryan longevity, although it's remarkable how many wins he was able to rack up.

But regardless, it's just really hard to crown someone as The Goat or "The Boat" or whatever when that person had so much control over his physical well-being and recklessly screwed it up...not from the toll of the sport itself but bizarre off-field decisions.
Sorry bro, I agree with most of your posts but saying it's an 'easy call' to make Jack the best is dubious at BEST. I don't actually care who guys want to crown the best, both are great, but both are worthy. Tiger has more PGA Tour wins overall and 3 less majors. That's not a HUGE gap. 2nd places mean nothing. It's comparable to the other thread where you had a guy argue with you that assistant coaches rings count. Wins is all that matters. Tiger also has something like a 90%+ closing rate when leading after 3 rounds. He's the best closer that ever lived in all sports. He's not bobby orr. It's not even close. He owns so many scoring records it's insane. Come on bro.

Edit: I hope he's ok and also consider his amateur career. Jack used to count those as majors and if you do he gains an edged there too.
 
Last edited:

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
PatsFans.com Supporter
Sorry bro, I agree with most of our posts but saying it's an 'easy call' to make Jack the best is dubious at BEST. I don't actually care who guys want to crown the best, both are great, but both are worthy. Tiger has more PGA Tour wins overall and 3 less majors. That's not a HUGE gap. 2nd places mean nothing. It's comparable to the other thread where you had a guy argue with you that assistant coaches rings count. Wins is all that matters. Tiger also has something like a 90%+ closing rate when leading after 3 rounds. He's the best closer that ever lived in all sports. He's not bobby orr. It's not even close. He owns so many scoring records it's insane. Come on bro.

When he started his career, the number was always 19. Mid-career, the number was always 19. This was always the measure for Woods, and his crowning "greatest of all-time" moment was supposed to be achieved through hitting this number. It seems like that was somewhat of "an agreement" of the sporting world, golf legends, and Woods himself, no?

It's hard to call someone the greatest when, arguably, they failed to achieve the very goal that would make them the greatest. Sure, it isn't the only factor, but it's a really big one. It's why, even though I thought Tom Brady was the best QB ever in 2015, it was very hard to say he was greater than Montana because we all knew that winning 5 was the key. Or for a more apt comparison with Woods, in 2013 Brady had only 3, and if he had retired then, it would have been hard to argue he was the greatest (even though he played better than any other QB in history) because he ultimately would have failed to even equal Montana, which was all along his goal.

I'm just talking as more of a casual golf fan, and that's my perception. You sound like you are really convinced otherwise about the criteria we should use for the greatest of all-time in golf and that Tiger is #1 or it's debatable. I'm open to hearing what you have to say, honestly, and not being snarky. I hope you'll take my point into consideration as well, though maybe it isn't as strong a point as I'm making it out to be.
 

Tottie

Third String But Playing on Special Teams
When he started his career, the number was always 19. Mid-career, the number was always 19. This was always the measure for Woods, and his crowning "greatest of all-time" moment was supposed to be achieved through hitting this number. It seems like that was somewhat of "an agreement" of the sporting world, golf legends, and Woods himself, no?

It's hard to call someone the greatest when, arguably, they failed to achieve the very goal that would make them the greatest. Sure, it isn't the only factor, but it's a really big one. It's why, even though I thought Tom Brady was the best QB ever in 2015, it was very hard to say he was greater than Montana because we all knew that winning 5 was the key. Or for a more apt comparison with Woods, in 2013 Brady had only 3, and if he had retired then, it would have been hard to argue he was the greatest (even though he played better than any other QB in history) because he ultimately would have failed to even equal Montana, which was all along his goal.

I'm just talking as more of a casual golf fan, and that's my perception. You sound like you are really convinced otherwise about the criteria we should use for the greatest of all-time in golf and that Tiger is #1. I'm open to hearing what you have to say, honestly, and not being snarky. I hope you'll take my point into consideration as well, though maybe it isn't as strong a point as I'm making it out to be.
Sorry but that entire post has nothing to do with anything. Your last paragraph is putting words in my mouth and reminds me of trolls you constantly battled on here. You said it's NOT CLOSE. That's complete BS. If you own up to that the rest can be negotiated but until then your posts on the subject are without basis. What he said as a kid has 0 bearing on who the greatest is and that's a scary way to evaluate players. He also is not the person to decide who the greatest is and neither is Jack. Again, I'm not saying I think he is nor am I saying he's not. I'd have to think about it. That's the point. It's very very close. Almost every single person would agree with that. It's not an easy call. If you polled 1 million golf fans in the USA of all ages will they agree with you? Would it be 80% Jack? I think Jack would be lucky to get 50% and that's EVEN if you cheated and polled people over 60years of age and older and ignored his own generation of fans.

Edit: Even better yet, go poll all active and inactive players. From both generations. You'd lose there also IMO and it would be even more one sided if the poll was blind. Again, I take issue with you saying it's not close not who you are picking.
 
Last edited:

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
PatsFans.com Supporter
Sorry but that entire post has nothing to do with anything. Your last paragraph is putting words in my mouth and reminds me of trolls you constantly battled on here. You said it's NOT CLOSE. That's complete BS. If you own up to that the rest can be negotiated but until then your posts on the subject are without basis.

Ummm...okay, whatever man. I don't know how you can read this and become so hostile:

1614125003053.png

I wrote that perhaps my point "isn't as strong as I'm making it out to be" and acknowledged I'm no expert and that open to hearing another viewpoint. I had almost immediately edited the post right after to include "that Tiger is #1 or its debatable" as well, but I guess you had already read it and were well into tearing me a new one for some reason...

Sorry but that entire post has nothing to do with anything.

That's up to you to ignore what I'm saying. I'm telling you I'm into golf that much; I don't get deep into the analytics or the level of competition between eras like I'd do for football. So I'm really deciding on the criteria used for GOAT, with total major wins being supreme, just like in Tennis. I tried to explain where I was coming from and invited you explain why I was misguided.

Your last paragraph is putting words in my mouth and reminds me of trolls you constantly battled on here. You said it's NOT CLOSE. That's complete BS.

Not only did I not put words into your mouth; I never said NOT CLOSE. I said "I think it's an easy call and Jack gets the GOAT crown." This is an all-or-nothing thing about who has the better claim of being GOAT; it's based on the criteria; of course I never said that Jack was levels ahead of Tiger or anything like that.

1614126066703.png

@Tottie , how can I say this politely? You accused me of putting words into your mouth, which I really didn't, then claimed I said "NOT CLOSE" when I didn't, then went scorched earth on me for something you made up. Your just being a total dickhead and can f*ck off. You're usually better than this.
 

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
Depends on what you are comparing.....

Jack
Masters: 45 starts, 37 cuts made, 15 Top 5s, 6 jackets
US: 44 starts, 35 cuts made, 11 Top 5s, 4 titles
Open: 38 starts, 32 cuts made, 16 Top 5s, 3 titles
PGA: 37 starts, 27 cuts made, 14 Top 5s, 5 titles
PGA Tour Starts: 586. Wins: 73, Top 2: 58, Top 3: 36

Tiger
Masters: 23 starts, 22 cuts made, 12 Top 5s, 5 jackets
US: 21 starts, 17 cuts made, 8 Top 5s, 4 titles
Open: 22 starts, 17 cuts made, 7 Top 5s, 3 titles
PGA: 21 starts, 18 cuts made, 6 Top 5s, 3 titles
PGA Tour Starts: 365, Wins: 82, Top 2: 21, Top 3, 19

Major Winning % per start: Jack- 11%, Tiger- 17%
Major Top 2 Finish % per start: Jack- 12%, Tiger- 8%
Major Top 5 Finish % per start: Jack- 34%, Tiger- 38%
Major Cuts Made: Jack-80%, Tiger- 85%
PGA Tour Winning %: Jack- 12%, Tiger- 22%
PGA Tour Top 2 %, Jack- 10%, Tiger- 6%
PGA Tour Top 3 % Jack- 6%, Tiger- 5%

Statistically, Tiger is superior. Jack won 3 more Majors in 77 more starts. Using Tiger's winning % if he had Jack's # of starts he'd have 28 Majors...but because he is the Gronk/Pedro/Bobby Orr of golf he doesn't.

With all that said, I think Jack had it tougher. Travel. Equipment. Competition. Courses were in rougher shape back then.

18 holes...match-play.....Augusta National.....Same equipment...In their primes...Jack wins 2 and 1.
percentages aren’t a fair comparison when one guy played half them as an old guy.
 

Deus Irae

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
PatsFans.com Supporter
Per WEEI: The L.A. Times is currently reporting 2 leg fractures and a shattered ankle.
 

Tottie

Third String But Playing on Special Teams
Thanks for putting things in bold so I don't have to read the rest. If you are going to say that I misquoted you we are done here. You said it's an 'easy call' and that's more than comparable to 'not close'. I have no interest in reading the rest. There is no discussion. If you said it's Brady over Manning is an EASY CALL, you'd have a point. When you say it with Tiger and Jack it makes no sense.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
PatsFans.com Supporter
Thanks for putting things in bold so I don't have to read the rest. If you are going to say that I misquoted you we are done here. You said it's an 'easy call' and that's more than comparable to 'not close'.

How dare I say you misquoted me when you misquoted me and put that exact quote in CAPS and called me a troll for saying it? Really dude?

They’re not the same thing at all.

What I said - initially - before acknowledging that I might be dead wrong (which somehow also offended you and led you believe I was doubling down, though it was the opposite) - is that it’s an easy call to me for who deserves the GOAT title, not that Tiger was never close to Jack. It‘s so obvious what my argument is, and yet I suspect you’re not trying to understand it at all. The argument is that if Tiger won 3, 14, or 18, or anything less than 19, he fell short, making it an easy call, much like a sprinter who comes in second, comes in second, making the result indisputable. That doesn’t mean the sprinter got left in the dust. It was clear that I was never saying that about Tiger, hence the comparison post to begin with, showing both of their claims to being the GOAT.

Again, you’re welcome to dispute that criteria. Again, I‘m not going to double down and give you all kinds of reasons why you’re wrong or why Tiger sucks or that Jack is great, etc. because I never did that to begin with and frankly wouldn’t care to or even believe that.
 

robertweathers

Chairman & CEO of Team Bill
PatsFans.com Supporter
percentages aren’t a fair comparison when one guy played half them as an old guy.
I'm not cherry-picking years to make and argument.

The numbers are the numbers.

Jack had 126 PGA Tour/Majors starts after the 1986 Masters. Throwing those out just because "he is old" is not right.
 

Tony2046

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2019 Weekly Picks Winner
TMZ says he was all pissed off leaving a hotel at 7am. Drove like a madman out of the parking lot.

Heard on the radio that he had some kind of throwing gig with a celebrity and was running late. When he got into his car he couldn't leave because a car in front of him was still loading their luggage. After they cleared he raced out of there.

Have no idea if that's true or not. Just what I heard.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
PatsFans.com Supporter
I'm not cherry-picking years to make and argument.

The numbers are the numbers.

Jack had 126 PGA Tour/Majors starts after the 1986 Masters. Throwing those out just because "he is old" is not right.

It depends what we’re trying to use the percentages to figure out.

I think most people are interested in knowing the percentages to compare their dominance. In that case it’s Tiger 97-08 and Jack 62-80. And I believe the majors are Tiger 29% and Jack 22%. But then of course, Jack’s run is quite a bit longer.

If we’re counting all of their years, I think total wins gives us what we’re looking for, and the percentages can penalize someone for non-peak longevity.

Just my opinion, Team Bill.
 

Top