Re: Tiger vs. Jack
Agreed RFS62, especially at the majors, which is what everyone uses to guage greatness.
Everyone glorifies Arnie and Gary Player, and rightfully so but has there ever been so much depth? Guys all have swing coaches, yoga teachers, short game coaches all this technology and Tiger still kicks the snot out of them half the time (at least it seems). Sure Tiger has the same benefits but that is sort of the point. In that respect, everyone is on an even keel. Back in the day only a handful of guys could afford to travel nicely and pay people big bucks to help them. And certainly not everyone on tour had an endoresment deal 30 years ago (just a guess). But Jack certainly did.
Not sure what Jack did with 54 hole leads but all Tiger does is close the door. The tourney is over after 54 if he leads.
If you are going to compare the two, you can't compare their records. You have to look into the future and predict what you think Tiger is going to do. If you ask me he is closer to winning 25 majors than he is to winning 17. He is going by Jack and it might be the time he is 37. He'll still have 8 years or more of a prime left. Look at Vijay. And Tiger is in better shape and works just as hard.
Obviously the book is not closed but for the sake of this thread, I went with Tiger. No way was Jack, THIS good between the ages of 16 and 30. Jack could play, no doubt. But Tiger destroys people. Put him in the pressure cooker, he's coming out on top. Sometimes he just has a problem getting himself into that pressure cooker but that is to be expected.
What has he missed, two cuts in 10 years?
And this from someone who cheers against the guy. I'd rather see, ANYONE else win. But I have to repsect the guy. I play golf and on my very best day, I've shot 3 over on my home course and I've been playing it for over 20 years. Tiger could show up, walk to the first tee without warming up and shoot a 61. I respect that.