Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:31:04
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Sure - there is no one else close to him but that's because judging a
golfer by number of majors was started by Jack himself and has only
been popular for 30 years or so! I think Tiger has a fair shot at 25
and if golf had had 4 majors a year during Snead's career and if WW2
hadn't come along and if Snead had cared about the majors, he'd have
won 30!!! Anyway - 18 won't last long.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:52:08
From:
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Sure - there is no one else close to him but that's because judging a
> golfer by number of majors was started by Jack himself and has only
> been popular for 30 years or so! I think Tiger has a fair shot at 25
> and if golf had had 4 majors a year during Snead's career and if WW2
> hadn't come along and if Snead had cared about the majors, he'd have
> won 30!!! Anyway - 18 won't last long.

He has won 18 more majors then 99.99999% of golfers so its not really
that bad.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 06:17:33
From: Jackson
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

No one should question Jack's abilities and records. The record will be
broken as almost all records are and if we take note, the conditioning of
athletes today and technology are what makes most records fall.
<twoofdem@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161917528.450566.22920@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>> Sure - there is no one else close to him but that's because judging a
>> golfer by number of majors was started by Jack himself and has only
>> been popular for 30 years or so! I think Tiger has a fair shot at 25
>> and if golf had had 4 majors a year during Snead's career and if WW2
>> hadn't come along and if Snead had cared about the majors, he'd have
>> won 30!!! Anyway - 18 won't last long.
>
> He has won 18 more majors then 99.99999% of golfers so its not really
> that bad.
>

Date: 27 Oct 2006 15:58:01
From: Manco
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Jackson wrote:
> No one should question Jack's abilities and records. The record will
> be broken as almost all records are and if we take note, the
> conditioning of athletes today and technology are what makes most
> records fall. <twoofdem@gmail.com> wrote in message

Exactly both Tiger and Roger will break the majors won records in both
sports.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:17:15
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Why can't we question Jack's abilities and records. Comparisons between
the current crop of golfers and previous crops of golfers is a great
pastime when the sun sets at 4:30 PM each day for the next four months.

Jackson wrote:
> No one should question Jack's abilities and records. The record will be
> broken as almost all records are and if we take note, the conditioning of
> athletes today and technology are what makes most records fall.
> <twoofdem@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161917528.450566.22920@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>>> Sure - there is no one else close to him but that's because judging a
>>> golfer by number of majors was started by Jack himself and has only
>>> been popular for 30 years or so! I think Tiger has a fair shot at 25
>>> and if golf had had 4 majors a year during Snead's career and if WW2
>>> hadn't come along and if Snead had cared about the majors, he'd have
>>> won 30!!! Anyway - 18 won't last long.
>> He has won 18 more majors then 99.99999% of golfers so its not really
>> that bad.
>>
>
>

Date: 27 Oct 2006 10:33:12
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

"Jackson" <hackman55@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:XJ6dnXxA26xhQdzYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com...

> No one should question Jack's abilities and records. The record will be
> broken as almost all records are and if we take note, the conditioning of
> athletes today and technology are what makes most records fall.

I disagree with the last bit in this case. Golf records don't work like
track & field records. In golf competition, you compete only against other
players who have also benefited from the latest and greatest. It doesn't
matter if you shot 10 under or 10 over the winning score 20 years ago at
Augusta; if you shoot 1 under the 2nd place finish in 2007, you will be the
Master's champion.

Scott

Date: 27 Oct 2006 12:29:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

On Fri, 27 2006 10:33:12 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com >
wrote:

>I disagree with the last bit in this case. Golf records don't work like
>track & field records. In golf competition, you compete only against other
>players who have also benefited from the latest and greatest. It doesn't
>matter if you shot 10 under or 10 over the winning score 20 years ago at
>Augusta; if you shoot 1 under the 2nd place finish in 2007, you will be the
>Master's champion.

A few records are comparable - such as a consecutive win streak. As
competition gets better though, those kind of streaks get harder.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 00:46:41
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:9pu3k2h8gf44ovhm70ptmta8rvqfob0s72@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 2006 10:33:12 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com>
> wrote:
>
> A few records are comparable - such as a consecutive win streak. As
> competition gets better though, those kind of streaks get harder.

Don't know. I think any such comparisons only tell you how good a golfer
was in relation to the field he played against, not how two golfers from
different eras compare against one another. For example, consecutive win
streak only tells you how long a golfer was hot against the field at the
time. It can't even be assumed that the player was particularly hot, since
it could equally be the case that the field was particularly weak for a
period.

Scott

Date: 27 Oct 2006 12:19:51
From: Zuke
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

You have to give some consideration to Wee Willie
Anderson as the greatest. Counting the Western as
a major is his day, his winning percentage in
majors has to be tops all time.

His death was very mysterious. Supposedly from drinking
but with his amazing winning percentage I wouldn't
doubt if poison was involved from a competitor.
Those were cutthroat times.

On Fri, 27 2006, Larry Bud wrote:

>
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>> Sure - there is no one else close to him but that's because judging a
>> golfer by number of majors was started by Jack himself and has only
>> been popular for 30 years or so!
>
> Looking at the stupid subject line in Google Groups, I KNEW this thread
> was started by you.
>
>

Date: 27 Oct 2006 03:57:42
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Date: 27 Oct 2006 18:58:53
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > The most impressive thing to me about Jack's record is not that he won
> > 18 Majors.
> > I'm more impressed by the 24-year span between his first Major victory
> > and his last.
>
> The Masters win in 86 was a fluke. In the 1981 -86 period that was his
> only major win and in fact only the third PGA event he won in that
> period. Jack was washed up after 1980.

That's debateable... because he made a lot of noise in the Masters at
least a couple of other times after 1980 playing well or 2 or 3 days
before fading in the end. He was still very capable of playing
excellent golf... just not for 4 days. In 86 he was simply able to make
through all 4 days.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 18:11:45
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

multi wrote:

>
> To make majors the standard for all-time best, when nobody before Jack
> even played them, makes as much sense as changing the standard to
> "most weeks as World Number One."

It's also unfair to the international golfers since 3 of the 4 majors
are played in america. The "majors standard" is strictly for american
golfers who played after 1960.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 18:08:33
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

annika1980 wrote:
> The most impressive thing to me about Jack's record is not that he won
> 18 Majors.
> I'm more impressed by the 24-year span between his first Major victory
> and his last.

The Masters win in 86 was a fluke. In the 1981 -86 period that was his
only major win and in fact only the third PGA event he won in that
period. Jack was washed up after 1980.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 18:00:39
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

S McFarlane wrote:
> "Jackson" <hackman55@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XJ6dnXxA26xhQdzYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > No one should question Jack's abilities and records. The record will be
> > broken as almost all records are and if we take note, the conditioning of
> > athletes today and technology are what makes most records fall.
>
> I disagree with the last bit in this case. Golf records don't work like
> track & field records. In golf competition, you compete only against other
> players who have also benefited from the latest and greatest. It doesn't
> matter if you shot 10 under or 10 over the winning score 20 years ago at
> Augusta; if you shoot 1 under the 2nd place finish in 2007, you will be the
> Master's champion.
>
> Scott

I was gonna make the same point myself. Technology makes it easier to
say hit a ball 350 yards but it doesn't make it easier to win 20
majors. In every event, someone has to win.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 15:06:40
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

The most impressive thing to me about Jack's record is not that he won
18 Majors.
I'm more impressed by the 24-year span between his first Major victory
and his last.
That's a long time spent at the highest level. Other players (Casper,
Trevino, Miller, Watson) played better than Nicklaus for shorter
periods of time, but none of them had his longevity. Perhaps only Sam
Snead exceeded Nicklaus when it comes to golf longevity, winning more
times than Jack but with fewer Majors.

No player in history has played the game at the level of Tiger Woods.
Whether he can keep doing it for another 14 years is something that
will be interesting to watch. Tom Watson at his peak was the equal of
Jack at his peak. In fact, I believe Watson probably won more than he
lost against Nicklaus. But neither of these guys could match up
against the Tiger of today. Bu then, neither could anybody else that
ever picked up a 5-iron.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:49:31
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

On 27 2006 15:06:40 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>That's a long time spent at the highest level. Other players (Casper,
>Trevino, Miller, Watson) played better than Nicklaus for shorter
>periods of time, but none of them had his longevity. Perhaps only Sam
>Snead exceeded Nicklaus when it comes to golf longevity, winning more
>times than Jack but with fewer Majors.

Sam didn't focus on majors, and skipped quite a few. Jack redefined
GOAT in such a way that he could beat Sam.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 18:54:16
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

In article <1161916264.795236.112910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:

Different time and place. Different balls, equipment, course
preperations, greens, you name it. If Jack would have played today under
improvements as above, he would have had a shot at 25 too. Actually, he
did. He came in second 19 times. Same thing with Arnie. Apples and
oranges.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:14:26
From: multi
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

On 27 2006 18:54:16 -0000, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header >
wrote:
>Different time and place. Different balls, equipment, course
>preperations, greens, you name it. If Jack would have played today under
>improvements as above, he would have had a shot at 25 too.

Bullcrap. If Jack had been born the same year as Tiger, he would have
been another Ernie Els: a big hitter, one of the best golfers in the
world, and a multiple major winner --- but not more than five or six.

Moving Jack into this era would level the playing field all right, but
that would hurt Jack. Today, all the top pros play every major. They
try to peak for them, and they scout out the course weeks in advance.
In the 1960's, Jack was the only player who did that. It gave him a
tremendous advantage over the other players. Even Arnie skipped a
bunch of British Opens, because it just wasn't that important. It
cost a lot of time and money to play in, and it paid about ten times
less than the big US events. The standard back then was events won
and cash won, not majors, so nobody but Jack cared enough about the
majors to make the trip to play in the Open every year.

Kudos to Jack. He was ahead of his time, and he was persuasive enough
to get the standard changed to favor his own records, rather than
Snead's. And he was a very, very good golfer. Just like Ernie Els.

But the number of majors won has never been a good standard for
all-time greats, for the simple reason that none of the candidates
before Jack could play all of them. Because of the travel
difficulties, Vardon really had only one major a year. The PGA didn't
really get started until after WWI, and the Masters in the 1930's, so
there go all the players whose primes came before then. The next crop
of candidates for all-time best, namely Nelson, Hogan, and Snead, all
had a bunch of majors cancelled for WWII, and IIRC played a total of
two Opens among the three of them during their primes.

To make majors the standard for all-time best, when nobody before Jack
even played them, makes as much sense as changing the standard to
"most weeks as World Number One." What, they didn't have the World
Golf Rankings before the 1990's? Well, too bad, that's the standard
now. Ian Woosnam has more weeks as World Number One than Jack, so
he's better, just like Nick Faldo is better than Byron Nelson, 6
majors to 5.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 15:52:55
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:gm65k2lkue4mq7jfs5c5gpgend7ht39bb9@4ax.com...
>
> Kudos to Jack. He was ahead of his time, and he was persuasive enough
> to get the standard changed to favor his own records, rather than
> Snead's. And he was a very, very good golfer. Just like Ernie Els.

I agree with you. Except he was better than Ernie Els.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 15:10:59
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

In article <gm65k2lkue4mq7jfs5c5gpgend7ht39bb9@4ax.com >
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

You cry "bullcrap" and then give me another "if." You have no proof that
you are right any more than I do so "bullcrap" is all this thread is
about. Speculation, guessing, and hypotheticals come to mind right up
there with your opinion, none of which demands the cry of "bullcrap."

Date: 28 Oct 2006 08:55:02
From: multi
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

On 28 2006 15:10:59 -0000, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header >
wrote:
>You cry "bullcrap" and then give me another "if." You have no proof

Correct. There is no way to know for sure what would happen if Jack
and Tiger were the same age, in either era. But I do give facts and
logic to support my opinions, while you give nothing but your opinion.
The fact that everyone is entitled to his opinion does not mean that
all opinions are of equal value.

It's very simple. Jack played the same equipment and courses as his
contemporaries, but his preparation for majors was much more thorough
than theirs. He was just about the only golfer who played all four
majors each year, and he was just about the only golfer who scouted
the courses weeks in advance, and built his schedule around the
majors.

If he were playing today, he would still be playing the same equipment
and courses as today's golfers, but his preparation for majors would
be about the same as the other top golfers, all of whom play all the
majors, build their schedules around them, and scout the courses in
advance. You say that would cause him to win more majors than before,
and I say he would win fewer.

> Speculation, guessing, and hypotheticals come to mind right up
>there with your opinion, none of which demands the cry of "bullcrap."

Sure it does. You're welcome to say that compared to Tiger, Jack had
greater mental strength, or played his long irons better, or other
stuff that can't be proved or disproved, and I won't complain much.
But if you say that Jack would do better if he lost his huge advantage
in major prep, with only parity in modern equipment to offset it, then
that's bullcrap.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 16:53:36
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

In article <vvt6k2dp5hq5ou9mjvlkmvg2rtak0dqp1d@4ax.com >
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

In a theory, facts and logic don't hold the same weight they do anywhere
else. A hypothetical can only be proven by trial, error, and testing.
Hence, until you can perform this, we're back to opinions and that's all
it amounts to.
As for mental toughness, maybe tiger isn't as far up that food chain as
we first suspected in that he gave some "tired and drained" reasons for
missing the tourny next week.
I think the horse is now dead.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 11:59:10
From: David
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

On Fri, 27 2006 17:14:26 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>On 27 2006 18:54:16 -0000, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header>
>wrote:
>>Different time and place. Different balls, equipment, course
>>preperations, greens, you name it. If Jack would have played today under
>>improvements as above, he would have had a shot at 25 too.
>
>Bullcrap. If Jack had been born the same year as Tiger, he would have
>been another Ernie Els: a big hitter, one of the best golfers in the
>world, and a multiple major winner --- but not more than five or six.

Jack's equipment did not allow him to be as big a hitter as the
golfers of today. If he had the same equipment in his prime, he would
have benn every bit the big hitters as those at the top. Jack also
played golf on a higher level than Els, or Mickelson. His course
preparation was gorundbreaking and his ability to maneuver around th
golf course could not be matched. Woods, in what is surely a great
compliment to Jack, learned by emulating Jack.

Jack's record at Augusta stood for how many years? When he played
Augusta, it was not with equipment that allowed him to reach par
five's with a driver and a seven iron. Having to hit long irons and
fairway woods in to the par fives that routinely playe as par four's
today makes for a completely different golf course.

Woods would have taken a few majors away from Nicklaus, but it would
have gone the other way, as well. Woods would not have as many at
this point in his career if Nicklaus was teeing the ball up next to
him on the final day.

<snipped >

>Kudos to Jack. He was ahead of his time, and he was persuasive enough
>to get the standard changed to favor his own records, rather than
>Snead's. And he was a very, very good golfer. Just like Ernie Els.

Comparing Nicklaus' game to Els is more than an insult, it is flat
wrong. Els is not match for the Bear.

>But the number of majors won has never been a good standard for
>all-time greats, for the simple reason that none of the candidates
>before Jack could play all of them. Because of the travel
>difficulties, Vardon really had only one major a year. The PGA didn't
>really get started until after WWI, and the Masters in the 1930's, so
>there go all the players whose primes came before then. The next crop
>of candidates for all-time best, namely Nelson, Hogan, and Snead, all
>had a bunch of majors cancelled for WWII, and IIRC played a total of
>two Opens among the three of them during their primes.

What, in your opinion, should be the measuring stick for greatness,
then? When Jack teed up the ball at a tournament, his adversaries
knew it was Jack that they had to beat. A couple of golfers rose to
the occasion--Palmer, Player, Watson. Today, there are not any
golfers rising to the occasion which, in my opinion, strengthens the
argument that the field today is not as good as the field during the
50's, 60's and 70's. Jack had much more competition to deal with. In
to the 80's, when he was surely passing his prime, he had to deal with
another golfer almost achieved the status of "great", yet fell
short--Greg Norman.

>To make majors the standard for all-time best, when nobody before Jack
>even played them, makes as much sense as changing the standard to
>"most weeks as World Number One." What, they didn't have the World
>Golf Rankings before the 1990's? Well, too bad, that's the standard
>now. Ian Woosnam has more weeks as World Number One than Jack, so
>he's better, just like Nick Faldo is better than Byron Nelson, 6
>majors to 5.

Okay, you win, Nicklaus was simply a poser. The guy could not play
golf worth a shit. That he was able to win at all was simply a fluke
and he lucked in to all of his victories. His weak attempt to have his
majors count as a measuring stick were simply to appease his huge ego.
Funny, Woods, who is seen as a god in the eyes of many RSGer's,
believes that this is actually the yardage stick and has made it his
life's goal.

David

Date: 28 Oct 2006 15:22:27
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

In article <te96k296mkgpj4euhmhtfq4g605pnk9p7a@4ax.com >
David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

David,
For the record, when I talked above about "course preperation," I was
referring to the way the present day tourny courses are set up. They are
perfect. Perfect greens, fairways, many trim down the rough, sand traps,
the whole deal. We saw the uproar earlier this year when an attempt was
made to make the sandtraps a challenge and none of the boys wanted to
deal with it. In Jack's day, the courses probably were the best at the
time but not on par with what they are today. Jack's course management
was beyond reproach as you mentioned. In fact, I read somewhere that he
was the first or one of the first that carried a yardage booklet.
Sometimes I think tiger's preperation is hit it as far as you can, hope
for a good break, and wedge it to the green. Jack had the edge over all
his competition here.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:48:03
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

On 28 2006 15:22:27 -0000, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header >
wrote:

>Jack's course management
>was beyond reproach as you mentioned. In fact, I read somewhere that he
>was the first or one of the first that carried a yardage booklet.

People learned from him. Now everybody on the tour is slower than
they used to be.

>Sometimes I think tiger's preperation is hit it as far as you can, hope
>for a good break, and wedge it to the green. Jack had the edge over all
>his competition here.

Sometimes Tiger does that, sometimes he picks a different strategy.
Did Jack ever win a major by keeping his driver in the bag?

Date: 28 Oct 2006 07:08:04
From: multi
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

On Sat, 28 2006 11:59:10 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

> What, in your opinion, should be the measuring stick for greatness,
>then?

As I have said in many posts, no single stat should measure a career.
I think you need to look at all the important stats, although some are
obviously more important than others. Among the most important:
career victories, majors, Vardons, yearly wins leader, yearly money
leader, and time as world number one. The fact that there was no
world ranking much before Tiger doesn't matter, since Tiger is now the
standard that future golfers will be measured by.

> When Jack teed up the ball at a tournament, his adversaries
>knew it was Jack that they had to beat. A couple of golfers rose to
>the occasion--Palmer, Player, Watson. Today, there are not any
>golfers rising to the occasion which, in my opinion, strengthens the
>argument that the field today is not as good as the field during the
>50's, 60's and 70's.

That is complete crap. The fields of those decades came from a small
pool of mostly Americans who swung either naturally, or the way their
dad taught them. Today there is a huge pool of talent from all over
the world, who are given professional coaching and instruction from
their junior high team on up. And it is Jack's considered opinion
that the huge increase in prize money since his day has resulted in an
equally huge increase in field strength.

Tiger has won 30% of his pro majors. That means some other golfer
rises to the occasion 70% of the time. And the fields are so deep
that Tiger's toughest battles in the majors have been against golfers
that have not had great careers before or since --- Bob May, Rich
Beem, and Michael Campbell. I think they have a combined total of
three PGA wins.

> Jack had much more competition to deal with. In
>to the 80's, when he was surely passing his prime, he had to deal with
>another golfer almost achieved the status of "great", yet fell
>short--Greg Norman.

Yeah, the Jackoffiles go as far back as Hogan, and as far up as Faldo,
and act like he played them all, every week. But when you compare
apples to apples, i.e. his first ten years against Tiger's, you see
that the best golfers of his era won almost exactly the same number of
majors as the best golfers of Tiger's era. Of course, when you
compare 30 years against 10, then Jack's competition won a lot more
majors. About three times more. Damndest thing.

>>To make majors the standard for all-time best, when nobody before Jack
>>even played them, makes as much sense as changing the standard to
>>"most weeks as World Number One." What, they didn't have the World
>>Golf Rankings before the 1990's? Well, too bad, that's the standard
>>now. Ian Woosnam has more weeks as World Number One than Jack, so
>>he's better, just like Nick Faldo is better than Byron Nelson, 6
>>majors to 5.
>
> Okay, you win, Nicklaus was simply a poser. The guy could not play
>golf worth a shit. That he was able to win at all was simply a fluke
>and he lucked in to all of his victories. His weak attempt to have his
>majors count as a measuring stick were simply to appease his huge ego.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with all of that, for
the reasons I gave in my original post. I think he was a great
golfer, and would be a great golfer today, and was way ahead of his
time in preparation and course management, so his victories were due
to skill and intelligence, not luck. However, he would not do as well
today, even if Tiger had never been born, simply because now ALL the
top golfers prepare for majors the way Jack did.

>Funny, Woods, who is seen as a god in the eyes of many RSGer's,
>believes that this is actually the yardage stick and has made it his
>life's goal.

Even funnier, Jack said in his autobiography that the middle of the
pack golfers of today (actually, of 1996, when the book was written)
would have been stars in his era, because the fields are that much
stronger.

Tiger has accepted that he will never displace Jack as the GOAT unless
he breaks his records, so that's what he's trying to do. Not hard to
understand at all.

Date: 29 Oct 2006 00:12:28
From: David
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

On Sat, 28 2006 07:08:04 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>On Sat, 28 2006 11:59:10 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> What, in your opinion, should be the measuring stick for greatness,
>>then?
>
>As I have said in many posts, no single stat should measure a career.
>I think you need to look at all the important stats, although some are
>obviously more important than others. Among the most important:
>career victories, majors, Vardons, yearly wins leader, yearly money
>leader, and time as world number one. The fact that there was no
>world ranking much before Tiger doesn't matter, since Tiger is now the
>standard that future golfers will be measured by.
>
>> When Jack teed up the ball at a tournament, his adversaries
>>knew it was Jack that they had to beat. A couple of golfers rose to
>>the occasion--Palmer, Player, Watson. Today, there are not any
>>golfers rising to the occasion which, in my opinion, strengthens the
>>argument that the field today is not as good as the field during the
>>50's, 60's and 70's.
>
>That is complete crap. The fields of those decades came from a small
>pool of mostly Americans who swung either naturally, or the way their
>dad taught them. Today there is a huge pool of talent from all over
>the world, who are given professional coaching and instruction from
>their junior high team on up. And it is Jack's considered opinion
>that the huge increase in prize money since his day has resulted in an
>equally huge increase in field strength.

There was a huge jump in prize money when Palmer came on to the
scene, as well. Palmer is the man who is considered to be the golfer
to take the sport to the masses. A slice of pizza and a coke cost me
50 cents when I was 13 years old. Today, a slice of pizza and a coke
costs me at least 3 bucks. Tom Watson was leading money winner on the
tour in the mid 70's with around $320,000, which would translate to
around 2 million on the tour today and never won 9 tournaments in one
year. Inflation play just a much a part in the increased purses as
interest in Woods does.

>Tiger has won 30% of his pro majors. That means some other golfer
>rises to the occasion 70% of the time. And the fields are so deep
>that Tiger's toughest battles in the majors have been against golfers
>that have not had great careers before or since --- Bob May, Rich
>Beem, and Michael Campbell. I think they have a combined total of
>three PGA wins.
>
>> Jack had much more competition to deal with. In
>>to the 80's, when he was surely passing his prime, he had to deal with
>>another golfer almost achieved the status of "great", yet fell
>>short--Greg Norman.
>
>Yeah, the Jackoffiles go as far back as Hogan, and as far up as Faldo,
>and act like he played them all, every week. But when you compare
>apples to apples, i.e. his first ten years against Tiger's, you see
>that the best golfers of his era won almost exactly the same number of
>majors as the best golfers of Tiger's era. Of course, when you
>compare 30 years against 10, then Jack's competition won a lot more
>majors. About three times more. Damndest thing.

This claim is utterly ridiculous. How many majors do Pamler,
Watson, and Player have combined? Watson won more British Opens than
any active player today has won in an entire career--Woods being the
exception. Mickelson, Singh and Els have been playing golf for at
least 15 years--Singh more than 20 years. How many majors do they
have combined? Els has 3, Mickelson has 3 and Singh has 2. Palmer
won 4 Master's in a seven year span.

>>>To make majors the standard for all-time best, when nobody before Jack
>>>even played them, makes as much sense as changing the standard to
>>>"most weeks as World Number One." What, they didn't have the World
>>>Golf Rankings before the 1990's? Well, too bad, that's the standard
>>>now. Ian Woosnam has more weeks as World Number One than Jack, so
>>>he's better, just like Nick Faldo is better than Byron Nelson, 6
>>>majors to 5.
>>
>> Okay, you win, Nicklaus was simply a poser. The guy could not play
>>golf worth a shit. That he was able to win at all was simply a fluke
>>and he lucked in to all of his victories. His weak attempt to have his
>>majors count as a measuring stick were simply to appease his huge ego.
>
>You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with all of that, for
>the reasons I gave in my original post. I think he was a great
>golfer, and would be a great golfer today, and was way ahead of his
>time in preparation and course management, so his victories were due
>to skill and intelligence, not luck. However, he would not do as well
>today, even if Tiger had never been born, simply because now ALL the
>top golfers prepare for majors the way Jack did.

Bullshit. If that were the case, then Woods would not have so many
majors on his resume after just ten years of golf. Woods modelled his
game after the golfer whom he believed to be the best of all time.
Amazing that it has worked for him, and Jack, as well.

>>Funny, Woods, who is seen as a god in the eyes of many RSGer's,
>>believes that this is actually the yardage stick and has made it his
>>life's goal.
>
>Even funnier, Jack said in his autobiography that the middle of the
>pack golfers of today (actually, of 1996, when the book was written)
>would have been stars in his era, because the fields are that much
>stronger.

Nicklaus was simply being diplomatic and I am sure that he does not
believe it for a minute. He would eat up the same golfers on the final
day that Woods has been devouring.

>Tiger has accepted that he will never displace Jack as the GOAT unless
>he breaks his records, so that's what he's trying to do. Not hard to
>understand at all.

Which records are you talking about--major victories?

David

Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:42:28
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

It would be interesting if the Tour persuaded players and fans that
there was a better measure than majors. Instead of players peaking
for the majors then taking time off, they have to peak at the
end-of-year championship.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:26:46
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

You just proved you are an idiot.

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1161916264.795236.112910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Sure - there is no one else close to him but that's because judging a
> golfer by number of majors was started by Jack himself and has only
> been popular for 30 years or so! I think Tiger has a fair shot at 25
> and if golf had had 4 majors a year during Snead's career and if WW2
> hadn't come along and if Snead had cared about the majors, he'd have
> won 30!!! Anyway - 18 won't last long.
>

Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:55:08
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>
> The Masters win in 86 was a fluke. In the 1981 -86 period that was his
> only major win and in fact only the third PGA event he won in that
> period. Jack was washed up after 1980.

If I'd have won it, then you would be correct.
If a 17-time Major winner shoots 30 on the back-9 on Sunday and wins, I
think there might be some skill involved. You could earn points by
pointing out Seve's collapse or even Norman's errant shot on #18, but
that's just golf. A golfer can't control what others do; he can only
play his own ball. Jack played his ball better than anybody else that
week.
It wasn't his first rodeo. Don't go comparing him to Ben Curtis, Rich
Beem or Paul Lawrie.

Imagine that ..... me defending Nicklaus!
Isn't that like one of the signs of the Apocalypse?

Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:13:16
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Howard Brazee wrote:
> It would be interesting if the Tour persuaded players and fans that
> there was a better measure than majors. Instead of players peaking
> for the majors then taking time off, they have to peak at the
> end-of-year championship.

EOY championships only work with team sports. THINK

Date: 30 Oct 2006 02:03:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

On 29 2006 17:13:16 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:

>> It would be interesting if the Tour persuaded players and fans that
>> there was a better measure than majors. Instead of players peaking
>> for the majors then taking time off, they have to peak at the
>> end-of-year championship.
>
>EOY championships only work with team sports. THINK

The Tour is spending lots of money for this goal. Tell them to
THINK. Or better yet, try it yourself.

Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:08:41
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:47:20
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 29 2006 17:13:16 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> It would be interesting if the Tour persuaded players and fans that
> >> there was a better measure than majors. Instead of players peaking
> >> for the majors then taking time off, they have to peak at the
> >> end-of-year championship.
> >
> >EOY championships only work with team sports. THINK
>
> The Tour is spending lots of money for this goal. Tell them to
> THINK. Or better yet, try it yourself.

So they're spending lots of money. That don't mean a thing. The fact
is you can't judge who's best in an individual sport by a one week
event. The best player may have a cold, or be in a slump or divorcing
his wife that week. It's different with teams - everybody on the team
won't have a cold the same week. PLEASE THINK

Date: 31 Oct 2006 02:30:36
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

>So they're spending lots of money. That don't mean a thing. The fact
>is you can't judge who's best in an individual sport by a one week
>event. The best player may have a cold, or be in a slump or divorcing
>his wife that week. It's different with teams - everybody on the team
>won't have a cold the same week. PLEASE THINK

What's the difference between individual and team sports with this
argument?

I think. I wonder if you ever have.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 10:15:19
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Why Nicklaus's 18 Majors is NOT a great record

Howard Brazee wrote:
> >So they're spending lots of money. That don't mean a thing. The fact
> >is you can't judge who's best in an individual sport by a one week
> >event. The best player may have a cold, or be in a slump or divorcing
> >his wife that week. It's different with teams - everybody on the team
> >won't have a cold the same week. PLEASE THINK
>
> What's the difference between individual and team sports with this
> argument?

I JUST EXPLAINED IT, YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!!!! GAWD BUT YOU'RE STUPID.