Yep...Bobby retired at age 28, and never was a full-time golfer. I don't think he ever was really a pro golfer, meaning he only competed as an amateur. He was an attorney by trade.

100% This^.

And the argument about the improvements in equipment is a wash. Why? Because everyone on the tour now is using the same stuff. So how is it an advantage for anyone? Everyone was using the best equipment available at the time back in the 1960's and everyone is using the best that is available now. The playing field has always been equal in that regard.

. No, until he surpasses the 18 majors of Nicklaus, he will be 2nd best. I am glad to see his Improved attitude, but his past actions are hard to get past.
[/quote]

Most all of us have done things in our past that we're not proud of. Before the shtf, Tiger was a complete egotistic, arrogant, asshole who acted like a petulant child most of the time. I could be dead wrong, but everything about him now seems different.The way he treats fans, fellow golfers and the people who interview him is 180 deg different from what it was. To go from the great Tiger Woods to a laughing stock had to have been devastating. To have the fortitude to come back from that, as a seemingly better man, shows a lot of character imo.

Because it took a 100% pure swing to play the game then. Now you can buy shaft to fit your swing, to curb your slice, to fix your hook.

Let's look at it this way, Were Indian's better hunters than todays hunters. I would think everyone would agree to that. The Indian had to make his own bow, string, arrow and broad head. And probably had to get with in 10 yards to make an effective kill( Maybe they used corn as bait/) Now anyone and I mean anyone can sit in a blind and shoot an animal at 100 yds. Could every hunter now kill an animal with the old equipment? It's apples and oranges.

He is the best player in this era, not of all time.

Most all of us have done things in our past that we're not proud of. Before the shtf, Tiger was a complete egotistic, arrogant, asshole who acted like a petulant child most of the time. I could be dead wrong, but everything about him now seems different.The way he treats fans, fellow golfers and the people who interview him is 180 deg different from what it was. To go from the great Tiger Woods to a laughing stock had to have been devastating. To have the fortitude to come back from that, as a seemingly better man, shows a lot of character imo. [/quote]

Remember when Titleist paid Earl 1 million to not show up at golf tournaments. He heard from the best----What's the saying, Can't change Stripes on a Tiger, I mean Zebra.

So then why isn’t everyone a scratch golfer?

There are 80 million golfers in the world, and 125 with a tour card...

So let's talk competition and it being 10x's greater now. Who was Tigers competition in his hay day? There wasn't any. But there wasn't really any for Arnie either until Jack, then there wasn't any for Jack. And now there is really on 5-10 guys that win with any regularity. Sure there are the guys who have a great weekend and just hit it in the screws every shot for that weekend. But to actually compete every weekend- very few.

If you have any athletic ability at all, I can turn you into a scratch golfer in a year. I was a scratch golfer for years, but I could have never made it on tour. And I sure as hell could have done it in the 70's with that equipment. If you're an 18 handicap I can cut 3 strokes by taking 15 different drivers to the range and finding that "pure" shaft that will keep the ball in play. I can cut 5 more just by teaching you what shots not to hit. Now you're at a 10, then you have to start practicing several times a week. To know within 5 yards what you hit each club. Then you start playing target golf, hitting to the front, middle, left or right of the green. And you start turning bogies into pars, and making birdies. Eliminating doubles. When you get to a 2-3 is when it really gets tough though.Those 80 million golfers don't practice. They just play. Those pros hit just as many bad shots as I did during a round. THE difference is the next shot. Sand saves. Missing the green and getting up and down. Putting and chipping. That's where those 125 guys are so much different. That's the difference in a scratch and a +4 golfer that those Pro's are But that was even the case in the 1800's when golf first started.

Remember when Titleist paid Earl 1 million to not show up at golf tournaments. He heard from the best----What's the saying, Can't change Stripes on a Tiger, I mean Zebra.[/quote]

I don't remember that, but sure don't doubt it. He, Michael Jacksons father, and the Williams sisters father, are cut from the same cloth. Their kids were a tool to make them money.

To me it's very simple:

Who won more by putting the golf ball from tee to hole in the fewest strokes? Who was in 2nd or 3rd place more often?

The true competition is the course itself over 4 days...where conditions can change often. Who is in the field doesn't matter nearly as much, other than competition pressure.

I've never seen the breakdown of stats, but how does Jack compare with Tiger on shots under par for the tournaments? This is where technological advances would show up the most.

That makes no sense since all of today's golfers have the same gear. It's not like Jones would be playing with today's technology against players with yesterday's gear.
The golfers today are also far better athletes

Scores today are about the same. That why courses have been made longer, and longer. That's why you don't see 59's every week. There are 600 yd par 5's and 500 yd par 4's. That's why I say Jones and Jack were better ball strikers. How many time have you heard "forgiveness" in iron's and driver's. That's where it comes into play. Tiger can miss hit a 6 iron and it will still travel 190 yds instead of 200 and 2-3 degrees off. Jack's 7 iron would have gone 100 yards on a miss hit instead of 150 and 10 degrees off. That's a huge difference. There was no room for error. That's why Jack was a better player, and the reason I could be a scratch golfer.

As far as Athlete's go, I would agree with that to some degree. Those old guys played in the 19th hole way harder than any of these guys. So to say the guys these days bodies are more fine tuned, yes.

The difference in equipment from back in the 60's to now is huge. Also, the condition of the courses and, especially the greens, is much better. My father was a lifetime member of the PGA and had me hitting golf balls at age 3. I shot a 62 when I was 16 in 1964, so I've seen what difference the equipment has made. In my teens and early 20's my normal drive was about 260 to 270 yards. At age 50 with a "modern" driver I could hit drives 300 yards. I still have a persimmon driver with a True Temper stiff shaft and I bet many "scratch" players today would hit it sideways. The difference in the "great" players who have won the most majors is their absolute mental toughness. Tiger had that during his best days and regained a bit of it with this win. Time will tell if he can keep it. He's hitting the ball tee to green better than in the old days, but in the old days his chipping and putting was unreal. He would not allow himself to make a big number and pulled off some incredible shots from trouble. Mental toughness allowed players like Tiger, Nicklaus, Palmer, and Player to stay "in the zone". A good teacher can teach someone to play well, but teaching mental toughness is nearly impossible.

Nicklaus finished second in 19 majors, and Woods has six runner-up results. Nicklaus had 48 top-three finishes at Slams, twice as many as Woods

You didn't answer the rest of the questions.

Golfis just plain stupid.

I did 2 post above. The scores, in relation to par are about the same. Tiger does hold several records by winning by more strokes in relation to 2nd place.

Tiger won The Tour Championshipby 2 stokes today with a total of 268, 11 under par. Tom Watson won the same tournament in 1987 with a 269, 12 under par by 2 strokes. The scoring looks like it averaged winning by 2-3 strokes over the years. Which I think is about typical.

I think that now as well. The reason I quit, I would get so mad playing because I don't shoot par. I would come home mad, yell at the kids and wife because I had a bad day at a game???? So I quit. Golf was very fun when I played in the "hit and giggle crowd." 1/2 Case of beer and a losing a dozen golf balls was much more enjoyable.

Yeah, but we are talking about wins here. Everyone you are playing against now has the "SAME EQUIPMENT". No one has an equipment edge over the rest of the competition. So a win is just as legit now as it ever was. Maybe more so because of how many more quality golfers there are competing.

It's like ths; the cars they run in the Indy 500 today are waaaay faster than the ones that ran in the first race back in 1911. But that doesn't matter. All competitors had access to the same car technology back in 1911 just as they all have access to the same car technology today. So people won for the same reasons back in 1911 as they do today. The ability to set up a car to run well and the skill of the crew and driver.

It's the same with golf. If modern drivers are adding 40 yards to your drives then guess what? They are doing the same thing for everyone out there trying beat your ass every week as well. If modern irons are more forgiving and help you hit more greens then "GEE", guess what they're doing for your opponents as well. In the end the deciding factor comes down to the same thing it always has; the skill of the individual golfer. Because they are all using similar clubs, balls and playing the same course.