***Official 2019 Masters Thread***

[Walden4Prez]

Not sure why, but I decided to look up how Tiger's Masters accomplishment stacks up in the GOAT conversation. I may be a little off on these stats, but I think they are pretty accurate. I love Jack and once couldn't stand Tiger, but I've become a big Tiger fan since he became human.

Tiger has won 6% of all Masters played (5/83)
Jack has won 7% of all Masters played (6/83)

Tiger has won 21% of Masters he’s been eligible to play in, including the years he played as an Amateur (2) and missed due to injury (3).
-Tiger is 43.
-Hasn’t missed the cut yet. (5/24)

Jack has won 13% of Masters he’s been eligible to play in, including the years he played as an Amateur (3) and missed due to injury or WD (4).
-He was 46 the last time he won, but played until he was 65.
-He missed the cut 6 times, his first one as an amateur, again when he was 27, and then as a 55 year old. The others were missed were his last three. (6/46)

Taking out the years Tiger didn’t play and his amateur years, he has won 29%. (5/17)
Taking out the years Jack didn’t play and his amateur years, he has won 15%. (6/40)

If Tiger kept up the pace of the ones he has played in, 29%, he would win 6 more. Obviously that isn’t going to happen. Jack won the Master’s once after the age of 43 and his highest finish after that came when he was 58 for 6th place.

I could really see Tiger win 2 more Masters if he stays healthy and plays until he's 60.

Golf and the people who play it have changed significantly since the days of Jack, Arnie, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I love those guys, but there are more good players today then there were in the past. Players today are true athletes, the money has never been bigger. Tiger is the reason.

I would argue that it is much harder to win a Masters (or any tournament) today than it was in the past.

In short, Tiger is the GOAT in my opinion. He's why I love the game, and why there are threads about the PGA on an Iowa State University Sports forum.

 

[stateofmind]

Golf and the people who play it have changed significantly since the days of Jack, Arnie, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I love those guys, but there are more good players today then there were in the past. Players today are true athletes, the money has never been bigger. Tiger is the reason.

I would argue that it is much harder to win a Masters (or any tournament) today than it was in the past.

In short, Tiger is the GOAT in my opinion. He's why I love the game, and why there are threads about the PGA on an Iowa State University Sports forum.

No doubt the game is on another level because of fitness and technology. But if you don't think Jack and Arnie's competitors weren't as skilled, just look at the equipment that they used.

 

[Walden4Prez]

No doubt the game is on another level because of fitness and technology. But if you don't think Jack and Arnie's competitors weren't as skilled, just look at the equipment that they used.

Not saying there weren't skilled at all. Saying that there are a lot more good players than there were in the past. There is parity for lack of a better term.

 

[stateofmind]

Not saying there weren't skilled at all. Saying that there are a lot more good players than there were in the past. There is parity for lack of a better term.

In the past I would agree, but I wasn't alive during that time and so I have no idea how good the field was. Jones, Snead, Hagen, Player, Palmer, are just some greats I can name and only saw a couple play. How many of today's players are in that, they could win every tournament. About the same. But how good were the guys outside the top 10? Who knows.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Not sure why, but I decided to look up how Tiger's Masters accomplishment stacks up in the GOAT conversation. I may be a little off on these stats, but I think they are pretty accurate. I love Jack and once couldn't stand Tiger, but I've become a big Tiger fan since he became human.

Tiger has won 6% of all Masters played (5/83)
Jack has won 7% of all Masters played (6/83)

Tiger has won 21% of Masters he’s been eligible to play in, including the years he played as an Amateur (2) and missed due to injury (3).
-Tiger is 43.
-Hasn’t missed the cut yet. (5/24)

Jack has won 13% of Masters he’s been eligible to play in, including the years he played as an Amateur (3) and missed due to injury or WD (4).
-He was 46 the last time he won, but played until he was 65.
-He missed the cut 6 times, his first one as an amateur, again when he was 27, and then as a 55 year old. The others were missed were his last three. (6/46)

Taking out the years Tiger didn’t play and his amateur years, he has won 29%. (5/17)
Taking out the years Jack didn’t play and his amateur years, he has won 15%. (6/40)

If Tiger kept up the pace of the ones he has played in, 29%, he would win 6 more. Obviously that isn’t going to happen. Jack won the Master’s once after the age of 43 and his highest finish after that came when he was 58 for 6th place.

I could really see Tiger win 2 more Masters if he stays healthy and plays until he's 60.

As of right now, Tiger is the greatest golfer to ever play. Jack had a better career. Jack never played golf at the level that Jack did and Tiger, mostly due to self inflicted injuries, hasn't piled up the majors.

I saw last night that Tiger is second in strokes to par in the last 5 majors. Now, he missed a cut and that probably helped him but there is a massive distinction between Tiger winning this week and Jack in 86. Jack's was a victory lap. He was still a good player but he wasn't trending. Tiger was absolutely trending and if it weren't for the doubt in peoples head regarding the previous 5 years, he would have been the smart pick to win. He has been as consistent as anyone in the last 3 majors. With health given, this was, in hindsight, and if not when. Also, it's pretty hard to pick against him in the next two majors and I don't know a lot about Portrush, but an Open pretty much will always suit him. He contended at a brutal test at Carnoustie, he contended at a bombers paradise at Bellerive. He's contended on the courses they will face.

The whole thing is amazing. It's not just the surgeries either. It's the fact that I don't think you could pile any more humiliation and injury on one persons plate than what he's had. There's a podcast called The Trap Draw and there's an episode from last summer that goes through everything he's been through. On top of all the golf stuff, he's a completely different human being. He's cracking jokes to officials on 12 in the middle of contentious rounds, he's high fiving kids walking to tees, he's yucking it up with Ian Poulter. I just don't think we will ever see anything like this again. It's a guy who played the game out of necessity and will to win who eventually came to love it. That never happens.

 

[Tre4ISU]

No doubt the game is on another level because of fitness and technology. But if you don't think Jack and Arnie's competitors weren't as skilled, just look at the equipment that they used.

If Tiger played these guys with equipment from the 70s, they would have zero chance. None.

As for fields in the past, they were generally just as good at the top but there wasn't the depth.

 

[stateofmind]

If Tiger played these guys with equipment from the 70s, they would have zero chance. None.

As for fields in the past, they were generally just as good at the top but there wasn't the depth.

Now see I loved your other post, but this I'm not 100% on board. It's like the Lebron, Jordan debate. You may be right, but there is NO way to say that with full confidence, it's just an opinion, albeit a very good opinion...

 

[Lineup]

give me Ricky Fowler

 

[Tre4ISU]

Now see I loved your other post, but this I'm not 100% on board. It's like the Lebron, Jordan debate. You may be right, but there is NO way to say that with full confidence, it's just an opinion, albeit a very good opinion...

I don't know man. The guy is 43 with all the injuries and hits it better than maybe 1 or 2 guys. As the equipment gets older that becomes so much more important. The guys now just don't hit it like he does and they don't have the control that he does with irons. He'd also gain in driving because he already plays a high spin ball (relatively speaking).

 

[mywayorcyway]

As for fields in the past, they were generally just as good at the top but there wasn't the depth.

Now see I loved your other post, but this I'm not 100% on board. It's like the Lebron, Jordan debate. You may be right, but there is NO way to say that with full confidence, it's just an opinion, albeit a very good opinion...

I agree with Tre4ISU. The gap between the top 100 is much smaller now than it was then. This is mostly due to the Tiger effect along with equipment allowing so many people to hit wedges into greens that used to be a six iron. The margin for error is a lot smaller now and there are a lot more people capable of winning a tournament.

Courses have gotten "smaller" with the advances in technology and golfers being better athletes. There weren't many golfers who could hang with the big boys in the 60s and 70s, and they would get lapped over the course of a tournament. That isn't the case today - most of the guys in a tournament have a chance to win.

Jack's win in '86 was probably more unbelievable because he had been a non-factor for so long at that point compared to Tiger, but Tiger's playing against a much tougher field now than Jack was. And there isn't a doubt in my mind about that.