OT:. El Tigre with the DUI | Page 2 | The Boneyard

OT:. El Tigre with the DUI

mauconnfan said:
Longevity obviously as one was/is injured.

Tiger won 79 of 313 starts. 25%
Jack won 73 of 586 starts. 12%
He won 14 of 69 starts in majors 20%
Jack was 18 0f 120 starts 15% (he played in some at an older age so they are very comparable in majors without the longevity factor)
Tiger was either 1st, 2nd or 3rd in 40% of his starts.
Jack was 25%.
While some believe Jack had tougher competition I don't believe when you bring the Euro's, South Africans and others into the game as much as Tiger saw them that it can be close. Tiger also won 18 World Golf Championships which included some of the best fields.

One is great the other was dominant. Both are golf!!
Expand ...

Part of longevity is being healthy. From 63-73 Jack won 13 majors. From 97-2007 tiger won 14 a dominant stretch, just not enough to call him the greatest. As for competition I can't say. Possibly, I can give that to Tiger due to modern athletes being more health conscious. If Tiger had the guts to play more often, his stats would be more in line with the bear
 
uconngb said:
Jack had WAY tougher competition. Anyone that doesn't see that doesn't know golf. Arnie, Watson, Trevino, Player, etc won way more majors than anyone in Tiger's era. Plus Jack had something like 19 runners up in majors. Tigers talent was special, but he flamed out too soon. Jack's mental game was way better for way longer and that's why he's the greatest.
Expand ...

Typical response from you. Lol .... thanks for naming 4 guys and the etc group that's proof you know golf and I dont. Lots of Euros were over here then huh? Parity is a beautiful thing.

Again this is up for grabs as an argument but to say "anyone that doesn't see that doesn't know golf" is ignorant. Well go figure.
 
Who Ha said:
Part of longevity is being healthy. From 63-73 Jack won 13 majors. From 97-2007 tiger won 14 a dominant stretch, just not enough to call him the greatest. As for competition I can't say. Possibly, I can give that to Tiger due to modern athletes being more health conscious. If Tiger had the guts to play more often, his stats would be more in line with the bear
Expand ...

I agree with most but have to think his winning % would have been real good if he added Hilton Head, River Highlands, Greenbrier and alike to his slate. These are 2 great golfers and this will always be one for the ages to discuss for golf fans.
 
Apparently it wasn't alcohol, but a bad reaction to a mix of prescription medications.

Sad what happened to Tiger. I've always rooted for him to make a comeback. Still am, as unlikely as it is.
 
Northbound said:
Who'd figure that at this points in their respective careers Long John Daly would be more competitive than Tiger.
Expand ...

Imagine the cash you could've made if there was a prop bet ten years ago on that.

2007- In the year 2017 who wins between Tiger and JD? The money that could've been made.
 
.-.
Chin Diesel said:
Looks about right for a DUI mug shot.

You know he's going to say the meds from his back had a bad interaction with the alcohol (Conveniently ignoring the meds say not to mix with alcohol).




View attachment 22588
Expand ...

Always go with the low hanging fruit first.

Regardless of alcohol or pain meds, someone in his inner circle has to say no way do you drive at 3am. Ever.

Even if he's completely sober, there's too many crazies on the road at that hour.

I've listened to state troopers say that any time after midnight on weekends, about 50% of cars are driven by someone over legal limit.

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/19490176/tiger-woods-arrested-dui-florida
 
uconngb said:
Jack had WAY tougher competition. Anyone that doesn't see that doesn't know golf. Arnie, Watson, Trevino, Player, etc won way more majors than anyone in Tiger's era. Plus Jack had something like 19 runners up in majors. Tigers talent was special, but he flamed out too soon. Jack's mental game was way better for way longer and that's why he's the greatest.
Expand ...
Jack was almost 40 when Watson entered his prime. People forget Tiger was the best player in the world until 2013, a year he won five times. The depth on tour at that time was light years ahead of the 1960-1980s (Adam Scott, Justin Rose, Phil Mickelson, and Jason Dufner won the majors and Stenson won the FedEx in 2013). It is not even debatable. Yes Player, Trevino, and Arnie were all time players, but Vijah, Els, Sergio, Phil, Goosen, Langer, ect. were not slouches.
 
mauconnfan said:
Longevity obviously as one was/is injured.

Tiger won 79 of 313 starts. 25%
Jack won 73 of 586 starts. 12%
He won 14 of 69 starts in majors 20%
Jack was 18 0f 120 starts 15% (he played in some at an older age so they are very comparable in majors without the longevity factor)
Tiger was either 1st, 2nd or 3rd in 40% of his starts.
Jack was 25%.
While some believe Jack had tougher competition I don't believe when you bring the Euro's, South Africans and others into the game as much as Tiger saw them that it can be close. Tiger also won 18 World Golf Championships which included some of the best fields.

One is great the other was dominant. Both are golf!!
Expand ...
Jack had 19 2nd place finishes in majors. Tiger?
 
Jerry1714 said:
Jack was almost 40 when Watson entered his prime. People forget Tiger was the best player in the world until 2013, a year he won five times. The depth on tour at that time was light years ahead of the 1960-1980s (Adam Scott, Justin Rose, Phil Mickelson, and Jason Dufner won the majors and Stenson won the FedEx in 2013). It is not even debatable. Yes Player, Trevino, and Arnie were all time players, but Vijah, Els, Sergio, Phil, Goosen, Langer, ect. were not slouches.
Expand ...


You're forgetting players like Floyd, Irwin, Jonny Miller, Jerry Pate. Even Seve was winning majors in the 70's.

I'll take the 1960-1985 Top 35 over the 1990-2015 crew.

And that's where most of your major champs come from.

Undoubtedly the depth in the top 100 is better now, but I'll go with Jack's era being more top heavy.
 
.-.
Chin Diesel said:
You're forgetting players like Floyd, Irwin, Jonny Miller, Jerry Pate. Even Seve was winning majors in the 70's.

I'll take the 1960-1985 Top 35 over the 1990-2015 crew.

And that's where most of your major champs come from.

Undoubtedly the depth in the top 100 is better now, but I'll go with Jack's era being more top heavy.
Expand ...
I definitely agree that the very top was better in the Jack era as compared to 1990-2005, but the depth in the top 35 was better and depth in the top 100 was insanely better in 2015 than it was in 1975 or 1985 or 1965. Top 10 maybe not.

Anyone trying to say Tiger was a media creation or a product of his era is a flat out idiot (I know you are not but others seem to be)
 
Jerry1714 said:
Jack was almost 40 when Watson entered his prime. People forget Tiger was the best player in the world until 2013, a year he won five times. The depth on tour at that time was light years ahead of the 1960-1980s (Adam Scott, Justin Rose, Phil Mickelson, and Jason Dufner won the majors and Stenson won the FedEx in 2013). It is not even debatable. Yes Player, Trevino, and Arnie were all time players, but Vijah, Els, Sergio, Phil, Goosen, Langer, ect. were not slouches.
Expand ...



Jack is 9 years older than Watson.

They spent 15 years of their prime overlapped.
 
Chin Diesel said:
Jack is 9 years older than Watson.

They spent 15 years of their prime overlapped.
Expand ...
I believe Watson turned pro 10 years or so after Jack. Watson entered his prime in 77, 16 years after Jack turned pro. Earliest you could argue was 75, still 14 years into Jacks career. Jack won 5 times after 78 and was never the top player on tour after that in terms of ranking or money.
 
Jerry1714 said:
I believe Watson turned pro 10 years or so after Jack. Watson entered his prime in 77, 16 years after Jack turned pro. Earliest you could argue was 75, still 14 years into Jacks career. Jack won 5 times after 78 and was never the top player on tour after that in terms of ranking or money.
Expand ...

Watson turned pro in '71. He had a 54 hole lead in US Open in 1974, won his first major in '75 and win two more in '77.

By your logic Rise, Dufner, Scott, Sergio and any other one time major winner have never had a prime.

Also Watson and Nicklaus had epic battles at Augusta and Turn Berry in '77 and at Pebble Beach in '82.

Jack won 6 majors after Watson won his first.

At a minimum there was a 12 year period (1975-1987) of overlap where they combined for 14 majors.
 
Nicklaus was definitely on the downside of his career but still won 2 majors in 1980. From 1981-1985 he had seven top-10's in majors and three runner ups.

At that point in his career he was on a limited schedule and was only big game hunting.
 
mauconnfan said:
I agree with most but have to think his winning % would have been real good if he added Hilton Head, River Highlands, Greenbrier and alike to his slate. These are 2 great golfers and this will always be one for the ages to discuss for golf fans.
Expand ...

I like the new rule that a golfer has to have played in 25 events the previous year or they have to play a new course, which is why McIlroy is playing in the Travelers this year. Now Tiger would be except from that rule because the number of tour victories he has but it would have been great if this was in place 20 years ago. I don't know how many times I've turned on CBS on a Sunday afternoon and look at a leader board filled with guys I've never or barely heard of.
 
.-.
Chin Diesel said:
Watson turned pro in '71. He had a 54 hole lead in US Open in 1974, won his first major in '75 and win two more in '77.

By your logic Rise, Dufner, Scott, Sergio and any other one time major winner have never had a prime.

Also Watson and Nicklaus had epic battles at Augusta and Turn Berry in '77 and at Pebble Beach in '82.

Jack won 6 majors after Watson won his first.

At a minimum there was a 12 year period (1975-1987) of overlap where they combined for 14 majors.
Expand ...
Watson had 1 or 2 tournament wins before he won his first major and I don't think won another tournament until 77. Sergio had 23 pga and euro wins before winning a major. So no that is not my logic, my logic is that simply being on tour doesn't mean you are in your prime, you need to win some tournaments. So as said 75 was the earliest you could say was the start of his prime.

From 1980 on Jack was never inside the top 10 on the money list and by 85 wasn't in the top 40 and 87 the year you said they still shared a prime Jack was not on the top 100. So no they shared a prime for 5-7 years.
 
Last edited:
Who Ha said:
How so?
Expand ...
1. That the media created the hype around Tiger and that it wasn't 100% earned.
2. That Tiger couldn't handle the pressure.
3. That you could possibly understand the psyche of Tiger in order to claim he couldn't handle the pressure.
4. That Jack is "golf" but Tiger isn't.
 
Jerry1714 said:
I definitely agree that the very top was better in the Jack era as compared to 1990-2005, but the depth in the top 35 was better and depth in the top 100 was insanely better in 2015 than it was in 1975 or 1985 or 1965. Top 10 maybe not.

Anyone trying to say Tiger was a media creation or a product of his era is a flat out idiot (I know you are not but others seem to be)
Expand ...
He was a media creation as far as they called him the greatest of all time and said he would surpass the major record forgetting about the mental nature of golf longevity
 
Who Ha said:
He was a media creation as far as they called him the greatest of all time and said he would surpass the major record forgetting about the mental nature of golf longevity
Expand ...

The mental nature of golf longevity? It's mental that he's had numerous knee and back surgeries? I mean please, if he stayed healthy he was going to surpass Jack and fairly easily there is little doubt about that. They had a right to call him " the greatest of all time" at the moment I mean he was easily the most dominant. Now that his injuries and indiscretions have caught up there's an argument, but certainly not an argument for longevity he's done there.
 
.-.
uconngb said:
Jack had WAY tougher competition. Anyone that doesn't see that doesn't know golf. Arnie, Watson, Trevino, Player, etc won way more majors than anyone in Tiger's era. Plus Jack had something like 19 runners up in majors. Tigers talent was special, but he flamed out too soon. Jack's mental game was way better for way longer and that's why he's the greatest.
Expand ...

You would have to compare how many different majors winners there were during their prime years to get a sense of in which era the field was stronger. I am guessing Tiger's. Tiger also played globally so you can't discount the travel and the off course demands for #1 were much more for Tiger than Jack. Ultimately, it is how you define greatest, longevity and number of majors? Or dominance. I do think that in their primes having Jack and Tiger square off, Tiger wins the vast majority of the time so for me that settles the question.
 
Tuna said:
1. That the media created the hype around Tiger and that it wasn't 100% earned.
2. That Tiger couldn't handle the pressure.
3. That you could possibly understand the psyche of Tiger in order to claim he couldn't handle the pressure.
4. That Jack is "golf" but Tiger isn't.
Expand ...

Tiger was golf for a ten year period. He was awesome. Just not the greatest of all time
 
mauconnfan said:
The mental nature of golf longevity? It's mental that he's had numerous knee and back surgeries? I mean please, if he stayed healthy he was going to surpass Jack and fairly easily there is little doubt about that. They had a right to call him " the greatest of all time" at the moment I mean he was easily the most dominant. Now that his injuries and indiscretions have caught up there's an argument, but certainly not an argument for longevity he's done there.
Expand ...

Case closed. I agree he was dominant for a decade. Injuries are part of the game. Whether it was injuries that totally led to his decline is debatable. The mental side plays a role and very well may have in this case. I'm no Tiger or even a futures candidate, but I was once dominating a friend of mine. We got to a 190 yard par 3. He took out his putter and put it 3 inches from the hole. I was never the same when competing with him. So to say it was 100 percent injuries is taking a big leap. Even if it was, he is automatically precluded from being the greatest.
 
On one hand, I feel a bit sorry for Tiger. He reminds me of Elvis. They were both massive celebrities but had no friends. But this "no alcohol was involved" mea culpa is embarrassing. He was under the influence of drugs and driving erratically. Who cares if booze was or wasn't involved? Like his transgression wasn't as bad as someone driving fine that would blow a .085.

It's bad enough that the illegal BAC level is so low. Not like in 60's when men were men. I was watching an old Perry Mason from 1961.
Perry was questioning the coroner and asked, "Had the decedent been drinking when he was killed?"
"Yes"
"What was his blood alcohol level"
".15, Approaching intoxication"
 
mauconnfan said:
The mental nature of golf longevity? It's mental that he's had numerous knee and back surgeries? I mean please, if he stayed healthy he was going to surpass Jack and fairly easily there is little doubt about that. They had a right to call him " the greatest of all time" at the moment I mean he was easily the most dominant. Now that his injuries and indiscretions have caught up there's an argument, but certainly not an argument for longevity he's done there.
Expand ...

If the stories are to be believed, many of his injuries were due to his crazy obsession with SEAL-style military training. So let's not pretend that there isn't a mental element to his downfall. There is.
 
mauconnfan said:
Longevity obviously as one was/is injured.

Tiger won 79 of 313 starts. 25%
Jack won 73 of 586 starts. 12%
He won 14 of 69 starts in majors 20%
Jack was 18 0f 120 starts 15% (he played in some at an older age so they are very comparable in majors without the longevity factor)
Tiger was either 1st, 2nd or 3rd in 40% of his starts.
Jack was 25%.
While some believe Jack had tougher competition I don't believe when you bring the Euro's, South Africans and others into the game as much as Tiger saw them that it can be close. Tiger also won 18 World Golf Championships which included some of the best fields.

One is great the other was dominant. Both are golf!!
Expand ...

Your point about Jack playing at an older age applies to all of these comparisons.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,263
Messages
4,560,456
Members
10,452
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom