2024 Stanley Cup Final - Edmonton vs Florida

[Pimlach]

57 minutes ago, Buffalonill said:

He didn't do anything  yesterday I don't even think he had a shot on goal..

So

McDavid was there and he was very noticeable but Florida did a good job on him last night.  

Weird game statistically, the shots end up about even but it seemed like the Oilers had the puck most of the time and they had better chances.  

Game 7 will be interesting to see. 

Florida looks like they do not know what to do.  They have been playing cautious hockey since game 4.  

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Buffalonill said:

He didn't do anything  yesterday I don't even think he had a shot on goal..

So

So... you ignore the 40+ points he has including 2 games in the finals where he dragged his team to victory because you don't like McDavid and it's easier to dig in and act like he's bad in the playoffs just saying you were mistaken about him? 

That about right?

[LGR4GM]

Jfc. The final isn't until Monday? So drawn out and awful. 

[Flashsabre]

26 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Jfc. The final isn't until Monday? So drawn out and awful. 

Brutal. It’s been like 3 weeks.

And it screws Florida and Edmonton. Cup ends on Monday, Friday is the draft then free agency. They have no time to figure things out.  NHL need to quicken this up a ton.

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, French Collection said:

The debate around the G.O.A.T. in sports will always be challenging due to the comparison of eras.

Tiger will probably win out in this argument as us Nicklaus guys go away.

I will say this, Tiger’s ‘97-‘10 run is the greatest period of golf dominance by a player, especially in the Majors. In 54 Majors played, he won 14 of them, was runner up 6 times, was third 3 times and was top 10 in 35 of these tournaments. He missed the cut 4 times. In a smaller sample of the ‘99 PGA to the ‘01 Masters he won 5 of the 6 Majors. From ‘99 to ‘02 he won 7 of 16 Majors. I compare him to Bobby Orr in that a great career was cut short by injuries. 3-5 more years of great play and there would be no argument against Tiger.

Jack’s argument is consistent great play over a longer period of time. 18 Majors vs Tiger’s 15 is all some people say and that can be enough to convince many. Jack’s competitive time in the Majors spans from 1960 until 1987. During this period he played in 107 Majors, winning 18, finishing runner up in 19 of them and being in the top ten 71 times. He missed the cut 6 times. Tightening up the parameters to a smaller sample size, I will use the years ‘70-‘82 for Jack. He played in 52 Majors, winning 10, finishing second 10 times and third 5 times. He was top 3 in almost half of those tournaments. He was top ten in 43 of those 52 Majors.

I am taking Jack because of more Major wins and being in the hunt at more of them, over a longer period of time than Tiger. Tiger’s injuries and personal struggles probably cost him hitting 20 Majors and then there would be no argument.

Much deeper field of competition for Tiger, too, which makes his accomplishments more impressive 

Holding all 4 majors at the same time is insane. I think the most Jack did was 2. You are right that run from tiger was a level of play unmatched 

[Pimlach]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Much deeper field of competition for Tiger, too, which makes his accomplishments more impressive 

Holding all 4 majors at the same time is insane. I think the most Jack did was 2. You are right that run from tiger was a level of play unmatched 

 

I have had a few good rounds myself @Thorny
 

[Buffalonill]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

So... you ignore the 40+ points he has including 2 games in the finals where he dragged his team to victory because you don't like McDavid and it's easier to dig in and act like he's bad in the playoffs just saying you were mistaken about him? 

That about right?

If he finishes the job I'll give him his flowers .

Right now crosby is still ahead 

[French Collection]

19 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Much deeper field of competition for Tiger, too, which makes his accomplishments more impressive 

Holding all 4 majors at the same time is insane. I think the most Jack did was 2. You are right that run from tiger was a level of play unmatched 

I agree there were deeper fields at Tiger’s Majors as far as overall talent but the only guys who could win more than a couple of Majors in his time were Mickelson(6), Els(4) and Singh(3). Jack had to go battle with Player(9) Watson(8), Palmer(7) and Trevino(6). Jack’s fields were deeper in Major winners.

[Thorner]

Just now, French Collection said:

I agree there were deeper fields at Tiger’s Majors as far as overall talent but the only guys who could win more than a couple of Majors in his time were Mickelson(6), Els(4) and Singh(3). Jack had to go battle with Player(9) Watson(8), Palmer(7) and Trevino(6). Jack’s fields were deeper in Major winners.

I know but that’s a small mathematical component relative to tiger’s depth of field in a sport where winning once a year would be considered good.

The depth of field is a far greater obstacle to winning than the top few guys.

[Wyldnwoody44]

Gotta admit, every time Connor touches the puck, there's a chance it can be in the net. He's that good. I still get sad thinking we ended up with curly haired inferior boy, when the nhl screwed us again with the rule changes. Who knows what could have been different but man, it sucks to see him up in that wasteland of a city 

[French Collection]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I know but that’s a small mathematical component relative to tiger’s depth of field in a sport where winning once a year would be considered good.

The depth of field is a far greater obstacle to winning than the top few guys.

I don’t know about that.

I would rather go up against 30 guys who might beat me instead of 4 who have beaten me.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, French Collection said:

I don’t know about that.

I would rather go up against 30 guys who might beat me instead of 4 who have beaten me.

The field wins almost every week man 

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I know but that’s a small mathematical component relative to tiger’s depth of field in a sport where winning once a year would be considered good.

The depth of field is a far greater obstacle to winning than the top few guys.

One thing that doesn't get brought up when discussing Woods absolute dominance when he was at his peak is that many golf courses got lengthened at that time as well.  There were guys that could drive like Tiger or putt like Tiger, but nobody had that same combination.  The PGA knew that he was ratings gold and adjusted the conditions to emphasise his strengths.

Not completely convinced that Woods would've been AS dominant as he was if the courses weren't modified because his driving wouldn't have been such an advantage.  So, since that was such an unusual combination - having a great long game and an incredible short game and both were necessary to win, just how deep was the field he was playing against relative to the field Jack was playing against?  It seems there are more guys that can do both well today than there were in Tiger's heyday.  (Will readily admit to only being a casual observer of golf, so maybe that combination is still as rare as it was, but it sure seems there are a lot more guys that are jacked than there were back in the 90's and early 00's.)

And get that the rationale for it was the advances to the equipment happening at that same time that was causing scores to get crazily low.  Balls carried a lot farther and the advances in materials science made drivers rocket launchers relative to what they'd been.  But, didn't see any of the higher ups crying over that happy coincidence that it also made the most marketable player of his day all that much more difficult to beat.

[Thorner]

Just now, Taro T said:

One thing that doesn't get brought up when discussing Woods absolute dominance when he was at his peak is that many golf courses got lengthened at that time as well.  There were guys that could drive like Tiger or putt like Tiger, but nobody had that same combination.  The PGA knew that he was ratings gold and adjusted the conditions to emphasise his strengths.

Not completely convinced that Woods would've been AS dominant as he was if the courses weren't modified because his driving wouldn't have been such an advantage.  So, since that was such an unusual combination - having a great long game and an incredible short game and both were necessary to win, just how deep was the field he was playing against relative to the field Jack was playing against?  It seems there are more guys that can do both well today than there were in Tiger's heyday.  (Will readily admit to only being a casual observer of golf, so maybe that combination is still as rare as it was, but it sure seems there are a lot more guys that are jacked than there were back in the 90's and early 00's.)

And get that the rationale for it was the advances to the equipment happening at that same time that was causing scores to get crazily low.  Balls carried a lot farther and the advances in materials science made drivers rocket launchers relative to what they'd been.  But, didn't see any of the higher ups crying over that happy coincidence that it also made the most marketable player of his day all that much more difficult to beat.

Was going to mention that, good point. He changed the game - that’s always a huge factor for me 

can’t go wrong with either

[French Collection]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The field wins almost every week man 

In a regular tour event, yes.

We are talking about generational guys at their peaks, in Majors. Tiger won 14 of 54 and Jack won 10 of 32. The field still wins, but there are only a few guys that can.

 

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, French Collection said:

In a regular tour event, yes.

We are talking about generational guys at their peaks, in Majors. Tiger won 14 of 54 and Jack won 10 of 32. The field still wins, but there are only a few guys that can.

 

There have been 233 men to win majors, only 88 are multiple winners. First time winners are more common. A stronger depth of field outweighs a top heavy grouping. Ultimately it depends how you wanna look at it 

Jack can say “18-15”

Tiger, I don’t think many disagree 2000 Tiger was a level for a golfer unmatched, overall career aside 

If you are taking anyone at their best to win one tournament, it’s gotta be tiger  

it’s tough to argue Jack didn’t have the best majors career of all time. He has the number. Tiger does have the most victories overall so GOAT comes down to particular opinion 

- - - 

On another note, that 15th win was pretty big for Tiger’s legacy. I know 18 was the goal, but without that “return to glory” comeback win, his career arc may have lacked resolution narratively

Edited June 22 by Thorny

[GoPuckYourself]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

So... you ignore the 40+ points he has including 2 games in the finals where he dragged his team to victory because you don't like McDavid and it's easier to dig in and act like he's bad in the playoffs just saying you were mistaken about him? 

That about right?

Guys like McDavid are measured by Cups, it may not be fair but unless he wins multiple cups I don't see how he's in the same conversation imo.

[French Collection]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

There have been 233 men to win majors, only 88 are multiple winners. First time winners are more common. A stronger depth of field outweighs a top heavy grouping. Ultimately it depends how you wanna look at it 

Jack can say “18-15”

Tiger, I don’t think many disagree 2000 Tiger was a level for a golfer unmatched, overall career aside 

If you are taking anyone at their best to win one tournament, it’s gotta be tiger  

it’s tough to argue Jack didn’t have the best majors career of all time. He has the number. Tiger does have the most victories overall so GOAT comes down to particular opinion 

Sam Snead has as many tour victories as Tiger so I think Majors are a better measuring stick.

I never saw him play but I would also bring in Ben Hogan as the best in a short window. His career was great but impacted by his horrific car crash in 1949. From 1950 on he only played the Majors and maybe a couple more tournaments in a year. He only played the British Open once and won. His 9 Majors were won in 8 years with the last 5 of those years being post injury. ‘46-‘48 he won 30 tournaments.

[Thorner]

21 minutes ago, French Collection said:

Sam Snead has as many tour victories as Tiger so I think Majors are a better measuring stick.

I never saw him play but I would also bring in Ben Hogan as the best in a short window. His career was great but impacted by his horrific car crash in 1949. From 1950 on he only played the Majors and maybe a couple more tournaments in a year. He only played the British Open once and won. His 9 Majors were won in 8 years with the last 5 of those years being post injury. ‘46-‘48 he won 30 tournaments.

Ya I’ve heard the Hogan argument before but no true golf historian agrees with it so I sort of defer. All 4 majors in a row is literally unheard of 

Tiger won the US open by *15* strokes that stretch lol. And the competition wasn’t half part timers like the 1940s. Hogan was great but he’s not on Tiger’s level 

Edited June 22 by Thorny

[Mustache of God]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Jfc. The final isn't until Monday? So drawn out and awful. 

The NHL, in their infinite wisdom, decides to schedule game 7 on a Monday night.

[Goldseatsaud]

Florida better score first or else

[JustOneParade]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Was going to mention that, good point. He changed the game - that’s always a huge factor for me 

can’t go wrong with either

I believe Tiger was the impetus for players to work on fitness, strength and conditioning. Can’t recall any other players doing so pre-Tiger. Maybe John Daley?? 😂

In a way he made his competition better.

[Stoner]

31 minutes ago, JustOneParade said:

I believe Tiger was the impetus for players to work on fitness, strength and conditioning. Can’t recall any other players doing so pre-Tiger. Maybe John Daley?? 😂

In a way he made his competition better.

Gary Player. 1,250 situps a day.

[Wyldnwoody44]

No more golf talk please. Let's talk a man's sport in the SCF thread. Not those weenies that call golf an actual sport. Give me razor blades on ice and toothless men 

[PerreaultForever]

I don't think Paul Coffey is getting enough credit. The Edmonton D has managed to adapt fairly well to the Florida forecheck and they are getting the puck out fast. They are the first team to manage that in this playoffs and it's made all the difference. I have to figure Coffey has a hand in that as an assistant.