💬 Tiger vs Phil PPV - Phil wins 9 million dollar purse in extra holes

[TUSKtimes]

Just telling you to put your money where your mouth is. You talk a lot of trash, tell everyone they're wrong and you're right, stoop to bottom dwelling levels to cut someone down, so you deserve whatever anyone throws out squirt. Welcome to the environment you created.

It is rare in crunch time that you don't get specifics from me. Including this thread. Any subject, any thread. You can either address those specifics or start crying how mean TUSK is. It's not personal, it's just free speech.

 

[BamaFan334]

Just telling you to put your money where your mouth is. You talk a lot of trash, tell everyone they're wrong and you're right, stoop to bottom dwelling levels to cut someone down, so you deserve whatever anyone throws out squirt. Welcome to the environment you created.

It is rare in crunch time that you don't get specifics from me. Including this thread. Any subject, any thread. You can either address those specifics or start crying how mean TUSK is. It's not personal, it's just free speech.

You're not being mean, you're just being wrong. I know you like to look at youraelf in the mirror and think you "got" someone on a public forum, but your character is lacking. You're the only person I've ever heard say Tiger Woods was the greatest golfer ever, the only one. I scrolled through over fifteen lists just to see if there was an instance I missed and no writer or poll had Tiger at #1. Continue on with your free speech, but don't get your feelings hurt when you get called out for being wrong on something you have convinced yourself on where no one else backs you up on. And that's coming from a seven year long Crimson Tide fan/almunus. I can't help you're an old geezer and have many years on me. But hey, beat that into the ground if you want.

 

[TUSKtimes]

You're not being mean, you're just being wrong. I know you like to look at youraelf in the mirror and think you "got" someone on a public forum, but your character is lacking. You're the only person I've ever heard say Tiger Woods was the greatest golfer ever, the only one. I scrolled through over fifteen lists just to see if there was an instance I missed and no writer or poll had Tiger at #1. Continue on with your free speech, but don't get your feelings hurt when you get called out for being wrong on something you have convinced yourself on where no one else backs you up on. And that's coming from a seven year long Crimson Tide fan/almunus. I can't help you're an old geezer and have many years on me. But hey, beat that into the ground if you want.

Still a little too much emotion @BamaFan334, you know you love me, in a manly/bro kind of way. Try concentrating on all our commonality.

Liking Tiger Woods is not a character flaw. I put up the stats to verify why I'm strongly inclined toward this conclusion. What have you got, beside these personal character descriptions?

 

[ElephantStomp]

Best ever? Jack still rules.

Jack was able to navigate a 24-year career. And Tiger isn't finished. Regardless, I would put those 13 years of being #1 against anything The Golden Bear got done it that length of time.

As far as Bobby Jones goes, I'm going to have to leave you and your measuring stick to the 1920s. Lawdy.

It's Bear vs Saban but in golf. You can't compare because the measuring devices are different.

I think you can compare. College football is harder now than it was during Bear’s day and golf is easier now than it was back during Jack’s day.

 

[BamaFan334]

You're not being mean, you're just being wrong. I know you like to look at youraelf in the mirror and think you "got" someone on a public forum, but your character is lacking. You're the only person I've ever heard say Tiger Woods was the greatest golfer ever, the only one. I scrolled through over fifteen lists just to see if there was an instance I missed and no writer or poll had Tiger at #1. Continue on with your free speech, but don't get your feelings hurt when you get called out for being wrong on something you have convinced yourself on where no one else backs you up on. And that's coming from a seven year long Crimson Tide fan/almunus. I can't help you're an old geezer and have many years on me. But hey, beat that into the ground if you want.

Still a little too much emotion @BamaFan334, you know you love me, in a manly/bro kind of way. Try concentrating on all our commonality.

Liking Tiger Woods is not a character flaw. I put up the stats to verify why I'm strongly inclined toward this conclusion. What have you got, beside these personal character descriptions?

I do love you. We agree on some good things and disagree. Makings of a good friendship. BUT, with three kids and a fourth any week now, I don't have time to copy and paste statistics after researching for an hour other than putting a whole resume together and comparing them. You talk about Nicklaus doing what he did over 26 years? Well that's longevity and showing that age, personal issues, and injuries didn't end his ability to perform and win. He won more majors and is the oldest to win a major at 46. Tiger can't do it for 26 years because he was out for too long to be able to do so. Tiger was dominant during a ten year run, but never really had the competition Nicklaus had. That's not saying Tiger just beat the breaks off a bunch of loser hacks, it's saying Nicklaus played against more all-timers than Tiger has, meaning even more that Nicklaus' competition was very difficult. I'm not taking anything away from Tiger. I have made points in the past that I've never seen a guy drain a putt like him when he needed one during his stretch. But he has gone mental and just isn't the same golfer. I'd be willing to bet you $1,000 he never wins another major, and is that something you would reciprocate? Those enough points to get me back in the game after a few personal jabs?

 

[ElephantStomp]

Golfers rank IMHO is:
1)Jack
2)Tiger

Had Tiger not had the injuries I think he would’ve caught Jack and surpassed him. People can argue who’s the best golfer ever, but the one thing that cant be argued is Tiger’s affect on the game. People watched golf because of him, people make the money they do now because of him. We can talk about Tiger’s personality, morals, etc, but his positive effect on the game cannot be disputed.

 

[TUSKtimes]

I do love you. We agree on some good things and disagree. Makings of a good friendship. BUT, with three kids and a fourth any week now, I don't have time to copy and paste statistics after researching for an hour other than putting a whole resume together and comparing them. You talk about Nicklaus doing what he did over 26 years? Well that's longevity and showing that age, personal issues, and injuries didn't end his ability to perform and win. He won more majors and is the oldest to win a major at 46. Tiger can't do it for 26 years because he was out for too long to be able to do so. Tiger was dominant during a ten year run, but never really had the competition Nicklaus had. That's not saying Tiger just beat the breaks off a bunch of loser hacks, it's saying Nicklaus played against more all-timers than Tiger has, meaning even more that Nicklaus' competition was very difficult. I'm not taking anything away from Tiger. I have made points in the past that I've never seen a guy drain a putt like him when he needed one during his stretch. But he has gone mental and just isn't the same golfer. I'd be willing to bet you $1,000 he never wins another major, and is that something you would reciprocate? Those enough points to get me back in the game after a few personal jabs?

Good enough. And I've been on the short end of my kids and grandkids plenty of times to get what you're saying.

The betting thing, just don't need/want your money. I'm not trying to tell you how great Tiger is going to be, how do I know, or anyone, including Tiger. In that hindsight is 20/20 I thought I'd give that a go instead. Philia.

 

[alagator]

I was a big Jack Nicholas fan and he didn't dominate his peers even close to the overwhelming manner that Tiger has destroyed the field for those years. Save your typing fingers cause it won't be explained by equipment either. It was far too human and fearsome than that. He had opponents craping in their paints on any given tourney. And when he had the lead on Sundays, he didn't give it back.

This is a load. It is just demonstrating you don't know a lot about Jack's career because the things you're mentioning (strong copy and paste game) have been matched and surpassed.

Tiger has held the outright 36-hole lead 33 times in his Tour career. He went on to win 28 of them (84.8 percent). In comparison, Jack Nicklaus’ 36-hole outright conversion rate was 63 percent.

All that demonstrates is better competition in Jack's day. It's further evidenced by...

t was far too human and fearsome than that. He had opponents craping in their paints on any given tourney.

and

From 1997 through 2008, Woods was a combined 126 under par in majors. There are 138 other players who played at least 40 rounds in major championships in that span. Among that group, Woods was a staggering 189 shots better than anyone else. Second on the list: Joe Ogilvie, at 63 over.

"Over that span." In other words, the same time period. That's included in a lot of what you've posted.

Tiger has 18 career World Golf Championship victories. Second on the all-time list? Ogilvy. He has three.

This is as irrelevant as your post about being ranked #1. The WGC didn't exist.

Save your typing fingers cause it won't be explained by equipment either.

There is literally no word to describe just how far off base this comment is. Graphite shafts shortened holes. BUT, that's no advantage, right? Titanium heads add distance but that's no advantage. A change in the face of clubs to eliminate slices and hooks but that's no advantage.

It's not a matter of whether I like Jack or Tiger the most. It's Jack, no doubt. It's a matter of you discounting what he accomplished and it's no different than football fans discounting the NC's under Thomas, et al.

 

[TUSKtimes]

It's not a matter of whether I like Jack or Tiger the most. It's Jack, no doubt. It's a matter of you discounting what he accomplished and it's no different than football fans discounting the NC's under Thomas, et al.

I put out Tiger's accomplishments that are a matter of public record. Have at them? A nice reminder as you get busy with your project, whatever equipment Tiger used, so did the competition and the same would be true of Jack. All any competitor wants is a level playing field.

 

[TerryP]

I put out Tiger's accomplishments that are a matter of public record. Have at them?

There's a solid point here. You're listing things about Tiger that have no bearing on the comparison. If it didn't exist in Jack's day, you can't use it to support Tigers case--IE WGC and world rankings.

A nice reminder as you get busy with your project, whatever equipment Tiger used, so did the competition and the same would be true of Jack.

This is not true.

When Jack was playing he hardly changed anything with the McGregor clubs he used. Tiger, on the other hand, had Nike building clubs for him specifically. In today's game you'll find different flexes on graphite drivers. Jack was using wood and steel. You'll find quite a few using TaylorMade drivers but far less have the same set of irons in their bags. You'll find Tiger carrying three or four wedges in his bag with different lofts. Jack, on the other hand, carried a sand and pitching wedge.

The only constant is the number of clubs allowed.

And we're not even beginning to talk about the advancement in ball construction in today's game.

 

[TUSKtimes]

There's a solid point here. You're listing things about Tiger that have no bearing on the comparison. If it didn't exist in Jack's day, you can't use it to support Tigers case--IE WGC and world rankings.

It exists today and is supported by the top 50 players in the world. In that my thesis has been how overwhelming Tiger has been vs his peers, why wouldn't you use tourney records that include the best of the best competition in the world? And for the 100th time, the only thing relevant about a number 1 ranking is what that golfer actually accomplished in the years he was ranked that high. Otherwise, Tiger and Jack never actually met in a tournament.

When Jack was playing he hardly changed anything with the McGregor clubs he used. Tiger, on the other hand, had Nike building clubs for him specifically. In today's game you'll find different flexes on graphite drivers. Jack was using wood and steel. You'll find quite a few using TaylorMade drivers but far less have the same set of irons in their bags. You'll find Tiger carrying three or four wedges in his bag with different lofts. Jack, on the other hand, carried a sand and pitching wedge.

The only constant is the number of clubs allowed.

And we're not even beginning to talk about the advancement in ball construction in today's game.

How is that an advantage for Tiger vs his peers? Unless you want to conclude that whatever Tiger had in his bag, the competition he played against was at an equipment disadvantage.

 

[TerryP]

It exists today and is supported by the top 50 players in the world. In that my thesis has been how overwhelming Tiger has been vs his peers, why wouldn't you use tourney records that include the best of the best competition in the world?

I did earlier when I asked you about the span between '62 and '74.

How is that an advantage for Tiger vs his peers? Unless you want to conclude that whatever Tiger had in his bag, the competition he played against was at an equipment disadvantage.

It is in some cases. Take the first players who were using the Pro-V1. The ball was an advantage in and of itself. Nike introducing their own line when they gave Tiger the NexCor club face to launch. No one else had those. The M3 and M4 drivers compared to those using Callaway is another difference in clubs with other players on tour. There's more than a few instances here.

Is it a coincidence that Sergio signs with Callaway, drops TaylorMade, and is now using Callaway to make his equipment? His wins speak to the truth.

Look. I've hit with a Brassie, a Spoon, and a Mashie (including the mid-Mashie.) I've hit with wooden shafts, metal shats, and grew up playing with Persimmon woods. I've played stiff, regular, and flex shafts...several different iron faces. There's a distinct difference in clubs then and today. The fact some players get to used more advanced technology before others unevens the playing field.

You want to talk about balls now? I couldn't count the number different brands around the house I've used and now just carry for balls to hit in the water or the woods when waiting on the box.

Hell man, it was an advantage for players wearing Footjoy when they changed the design of their shoes to resemble more of a tennis shoe versus a saddle oxford. Everyone wasn't sponsored by FootJoy. It was an advantage to guys whose shoe sponsors started selling new spikes versus the old metal--easier walk.

I'm really left shaking my head a bit if you don't see how equipment really gives guys an advantage--especially when your brand (TW) is the only one that has that item.

 

[TUSKtimes]

It is in some cases. Take the first players who were using the Pro-V1. The ball was an advantage in and of itself. Nike introducing their own line when they gave Tiger the NexCor club face to launch. No one else had those. The M3 and M4 drivers compared to those using Callaway is another difference in clubs with other players on tour. There's more than a few instances here.

Is it a coincidence that Sergio signs with Callaway, drops TaylorMade, and is now using Callaway to make his equipment? His wins speak to the truth.

Look. I've hit with a Brassie, a Spoon, and a Mashie (including the mid-Mashie.) I've hit with wooden shafts, metal shats, and grew up playing with Persimmon woods. I've played stiff, regular, and flex shafts...several different iron faces. There's a distinct difference in clubs then and today. The fact some players get to used more advanced technology before others unevens the playing field.

You want to talk about balls now? I couldn't count the number different brands around the house I've used and now just carry for balls to hit in the water or the woods when waiting on the box.

Hell man, it was an advantage for players wearing Footjoy when they changed the design of their shoes to resemble more of a tennis shoe versus a saddle oxford. Everyone wasn't sponsored by FootJoy. It was an advantage to guys whose shoe sponsors started selling new spikes versus the old metal--easier walk.

I'm really left shaking my head a bit if you don't see how equipment really gives guys an advantage--especially when your brand (TW) is the only one that has that item.

It's hard for me to imagine that all these world-class players thought Tiger's success evolved around his Niki equipment and then didn't go out and sign with Niki themselves. Instead, most of his competitors were more than satisfied to dig in with Taylormade, Callaway, and Titleist for all those years. Amazing amount of boycotting for such extraordinary clubs and of course Niki is so successful they get out of the golf equipment business in 2016.

 

[BamaFan334]

It is in some cases. Take the first players who were using the Pro-V1. The ball was an advantage in and of itself. Nike introducing their own line when they gave Tiger the NexCor club face to launch. No one else had those. The M3 and M4 drivers compared to those using Callaway is another difference in clubs with other players on tour. There's more than a few instances here.

Is it a coincidence that Sergio signs with Callaway, drops TaylorMade, and is now using Callaway to make his equipment? His wins speak to the truth.

Look. I've hit with a Brassie, a Spoon, and a Mashie (including the mid-Mashie.) I've hit with wooden shafts, metal shats, and grew up playing with Persimmon woods. I've played stiff, regular, and flex shafts...several different iron faces. There's a distinct difference in clubs then and today. The fact some players get to used more advanced technology before others unevens the playing field.

You want to talk about balls now? I couldn't count the number different brands around the house I've used and now just carry for balls to hit in the water or the woods when waiting on the box.

Hell man, it was an advantage for players wearing Footjoy when they changed the design of their shoes to resemble more of a tennis shoe versus a saddle oxford. Everyone wasn't sponsored by FootJoy. It was an advantage to guys whose shoe sponsors started selling new spikes versus the old metal--easier walk.

I'm really left shaking my head a bit if you don't see how equipment really gives guys an advantage--especially when your brand (TW) is the only one that has that item.

It's hard for me to imagine that all these world-class players thought Tiger's success evolved around his Niki equipment and then didn't go out and sign with Niki themselves. Instead, most of his competitors were more than satisfied to dig in with Taylormade, Callaway, and Titleist for all those years. Amazing amount of boycotting for such extraordinary clubs and of course Niki is so successful they get out of the golf equipment business in 2016.

Nike won't even let their guys wear red on Sunday's because of Tiger. They are protecting their brand and investment in him. There are plenty of Tiger only items out there where they let their best chance to win and make money test it out. Tiger is an amazing talent, but sponsors stack the deck just like every other instance in our daily lives where people make decisions that affect groups of people. Equate it to Alabama facilities. Yeah, every school has a weight room, but do they have the trainers, after care facilities, nutritionists, and machines that we do? And look how much we benefit from it. For instance, the low gravity machine we had before anyone else in the country where our hurt players could keep up their cardio without missing a beat. Tell me that was not was not a leg up on the competition.

 

[TerryP]

It is in some cases. Take the first players who were using the Pro-V1. The ball was an advantage in and of itself. Nike introducing their own line when they gave Tiger the NexCor club face to launch. No one else had those. The M3 and M4 drivers compared to those using Callaway is another difference in clubs with other players on tour. There's more than a few instances here.

Is it a coincidence that Sergio signs with Callaway, drops TaylorMade, and is now using Callaway to make his equipment? His wins speak to the truth.

Look. I've hit with a Brassie, a Spoon, and a Mashie (including the mid-Mashie.) I've hit with wooden shafts, metal shats, and grew up playing with Persimmon woods. I've played stiff, regular, and flex shafts...several different iron faces. There's a distinct difference in clubs then and today. The fact some players get to used more advanced technology before others unevens the playing field.

You want to talk about balls now? I couldn't count the number different brands around the house I've used and now just carry for balls to hit in the water or the woods when waiting on the box.

Hell man, it was an advantage for players wearing Footjoy when they changed the design of their shoes to resemble more of a tennis shoe versus a saddle oxford. Everyone wasn't sponsored by FootJoy. It was an advantage to guys whose shoe sponsors started selling new spikes versus the old metal--easier walk.

I'm really left shaking my head a bit if you don't see how equipment really gives guys an advantage--especially when your brand (TW) is the only one that has that item.

It's hard for me to imagine that all these world-class players thought Tiger's success evolved around his Niki equipment and then didn't go out and sign with Niki themselves. Instead, most of his competitors were more than satisfied to dig in with Taylormade, Callaway, and Titleist for all those years. Amazing amount of boycotting for such extraordinary clubs and of course Niki is so successful they get out of the golf equipment business in 2016.

This would be a case of you taking what I said and rewording it to a point that it means something completely different. I never suggested his success evolved around his Nike deal. I said there was equipement he was using that others didn't have access to use. And yes, at times, that's an advantage. I don't want to assume you're trying to be obstinate here and I tried to eliminate that possibility by citing several examples of how players on the tour get advantages over others--balls, shoes, and hell even clothing. (Still lost on why Phil is wearing shirts like that on the course.)

You seem to be making light of a point without considering a player can't just say, "I'm quitting TaylorMade and going to Nike." The old contract thing carries a lot of weight with endorsements.

These companies did adapt after some of the breakthroughs. When Titleist launched their Pro V1 series only those that were sponsored by Titleist were using them. It's a great tour ball and has distinct advantages. That lead to the TaylorMade Tour Preferred, the Callaway Chrome Soft and their SR series, Bridgestong got in the game with a heck of a premium ball as well as Srixon. There's more than a handful of others.

Nike hung their entire golf line on Tiger. By '16 their stock was as bad as Under Armor is today--the bottom fell out. Why? I suspect a lot tracks back to a certain 9i in 2009.

 

[BamaFan334]

It is in some cases. Take the first players who were using the Pro-V1. The ball was an advantage in and of itself. Nike introducing their own line when they gave Tiger the NexCor club face to launch. No one else had those. The M3 and M4 drivers compared to those using Callaway is another difference in clubs with other players on tour. There's more than a few instances here.

Is it a coincidence that Sergio signs with Callaway, drops TaylorMade, and is now using Callaway to make his equipment? His wins speak to the truth.

Look. I've hit with a Brassie, a Spoon, and a Mashie (including the mid-Mashie.) I've hit with wooden shafts, metal shats, and grew up playing with Persimmon woods. I've played stiff, regular, and flex shafts...several different iron faces. There's a distinct difference in clubs then and today. The fact some players get to used more advanced technology before others unevens the playing field.

You want to talk about balls now? I couldn't count the number different brands around the house I've used and now just carry for balls to hit in the water or the woods when waiting on the box.

Hell man, it was an advantage for players wearing Footjoy when they changed the design of their shoes to resemble more of a tennis shoe versus a saddle oxford. Everyone wasn't sponsored by FootJoy. It was an advantage to guys whose shoe sponsors started selling new spikes versus the old metal--easier walk.

I'm really left shaking my head a bit if you don't see how equipment really gives guys an advantage--especially when your brand (TW) is the only one that has that item.

It's hard for me to imagine that all these world-class players thought Tiger's success evolved around his Niki equipment and then didn't go out and sign with Niki themselves. Instead, most of his competitors were more than satisfied to dig in with Taylormade, Callaway, and Titleist for all those years. Amazing amount of boycotting for such extraordinary clubs and of course Niki is so successful they get out of the golf equipment business in 2016.

This would be a case of you taking what I said and rewording it to a point that it means something completely different. I never suggested his success evolved around his Nike deal. I said there was equipement he was using that others didn't have access to use. And yes, at times, that's an advantage. I don't want to assume you're trying to be obstinate here and I tried to eliminate that possibility by citing several examples of how players on the tour get advantages over others--balls, shoes, and hell even clothing. (Still lost on why Phil is wearing shirts like that on the course.)

You seem to be making light of a point without considering a player can't just say, "I'm quitting TaylorMade and going to Nike." The old contract thing carries a lot of weight with endorsements.

These companies did adapt after some of the breakthroughs. When Titleist launched their Pro V1 series only those that were sponsored by Titleist were using them. It's a great tour ball and has distinct advantages. That lead to the TaylorMade Tour Preferred, the Callaway Chrome Soft and their SR series, Bridgestong got in the game with a heck of a premium ball as well as Srixon. There's more than a handful of others.

Nike hung their entire golf line on Tiger. By '16 their stock was as bad as Under Armor is today--the bottom fell out. Why? I suspect a lot tracks back to a certain 9i in 2009.

I love the ProV1x. I can fly the ball pretty high as is, but man, that ball let's me air it out off the tee and clear trees I would normally hit with my Driver. I grew up hitting whatever my dad put in my bag (usually scuffed up balls and shitty ones he would beat around the yard), and never really got into them as I simply couldn't afford $50 a dozen. The last number of years though I've been lucky enough to have the funds to splurge on golf balls and started hitting the ProV1 and could immediately tell a difference. I still can't hit it and make it check like my dad can, but I can feel the softness. The ProV1x are my new favorites as it just allows me to hit the ball higher and I can see it most definitely. Sucks when you fade the ball as it seems to never want to come down, but it you hit a solid shot it looks beautiful in the air.

 

[TerryP]

@BamaFan334, It never was a money thing with me for buying golf balls. When I reached the point of knowing I could stay dry and in the short stuff ... natural progression, if you will.

I've been playing Kick X Tour-Z Premium since last fall. I've lost six, maybe eight out of the first dozen and bought my last a month or so ago.

Choosing to play it high on a few of my favorite courses in this area might have you buying Dunlop. :devil: Hell, I hooded a 6i yesterday on 17 (3 par playing around 140 to the front) and didn't make it due to the wind. Hit the fringe/bank and I was in the swamp grass. I could see it...might have got it...but didn't want to walk through that crap in shorts. Only double of the day.

I did catch all of a 3w yesterday and put it a little over 300...thank you, Mother Nature.

 

[BamaFan334]

@BamaFan334, It never was a money thing with me for buying golf balls. When I reached the point of knowing I could stay dry and in the short stuff ... natural progression, if you will.

I've been playing Kick X Tour-Z Premium since last fall. I've lost six, maybe eight out of the first dozen and bought my last a month or so ago.

Choosing to play it high on a few of my favorite courses in this area might have you buying Dunlop. :devil: Hell, I hooded a 6i yesterday on 17 (3 par playing around 140 to the front) and didn't make it due to the wind. Hit the fringe/bank and I was in the swamp grass. I could see it...might have got it...but didn't want to walk through that crap in shorts. Only double of the day.

I did catch all of a 3w yesterday and put it a little over 300...thank you, Mother Nature.

Well it was roof over the head or some golf balls with how I used to have to scrape by.

Have you played the Nitro golf balls? I hear they are the big thing now, and I found one on the course a couple months back, thought it was a cheap piece of crap before I saw the commercials and such and used it to hit into the lake. Now I'm hearing they are the nice cheap alternative to the pricey golf balls out there.

Nothing like thumping a nice three wood. I got ahold of one a couple weekends ago and flew it 245 while reading 248 from the shooter, and landed it about five foot from the pin, no elements involved. Best shot with that club I have ever hit, and furthest. Felt like a teenager with his first girlfriend.

 

[TerryP]

Have you played the Nitro golf balls?

No. I haven't. Someone mentioned them recently and I can't recall who, or why.

 

[alagator]

Things Tiger never did and will never do.