Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Capt. Tuttle, post: 2403984, member: 191"] I think this is an interesting question. I will preface this by saying generally in athletics, newer is better. It might be that Jack's peers we're not as good as Tigers, but that Tiger was just so much better than his peers that they, in comparison, do not look as strong as Jack's best rivals. Maybe Jack was just barely beating, and sometimes losing to, pretty equal players, but Tiger was destroying even better players. In other words, would Phil be considered one of the best of all time, but for Tiger? In golf is it so hard to tell, because of the equipment changes. One thing I do know (or think I do) is that they tried to "Tiger proof" some courses. They never tried to "Bear proof" any courses in Jack's prime. [/QUOTE]