Comments on: Tiger and Jack http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack Golf News, Reviews, and Commentary Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:20:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: stan d. http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-12674 stan d. Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:34:18 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-12674 You're missing the biggest part of the formula. You don't know how Tiger would've handled Jack or how Jack would've handled Tiger. Who cares how Tiger's doing against other golfers, THEY AREN'T JACK. There are no stats if you're comparing Jack to Tiger. They never played each other. Comparing Jack to Tom Watson, sure. Comparing Tiger to Vijay Singh, sure. Those are REALISTIC because it actually happened in REAL LIFE. WAKE UP, THEY NEVER PLAYED AGAINST EACH OTHER. In order to figure out who's the best ever, they have to actually play against each other IN THEIR PRIMES. We can't answer the question "who's the best". Not everything in life can be figured out with statistics folks. If Jack was better than Tiger's competitors, then how can you predict how Tiger would've done against Jack. We can't just guess at those things and that's why we will never know who's the best golfer. I've just proven why all your stats are worthless in a comparison between Jack and Tiger. Tiger's beating Jack's records against people OTHER THAN JACK. Let's look at Tiger's competition. Vijay crushed Tiger in 2004 but didn't like the attention of being #1. Phil spends 1/2 of his time with his family and 1/2 for golf, so he'll never give his all. Tiger beat Bob May for a major(Bob who??). Mike Weir, Jim Furyk, Zach Johnson,ect... All Tiger has to do to beat Jack's record is beat these millionaire golfers who aren't hungry enough to protect Jack's records. The average golf fan doesn't know that Jack was in a world of his own just like Tiger and also that Jack didn't have anybody to catch. He held the record without any big reason to win more than 18 majors. Here's something else to think about: If the best golfer's from all different eras played together in their primes, maybe the best golfer wouldn't be Tiger or Jack. Maybe it would be Bobby Jones or Ben Hogan. We'll never know and there's absolutely no way of knowing. You're missing the biggest part of the formula. You don't know how Tiger would've handled Jack or how Jack would've handled Tiger. Who cares how Tiger's doing against other golfers, THEY AREN'T JACK. There are no stats if you're comparing Jack to Tiger. They never played each other. Comparing Jack to Tom Watson, sure. Comparing Tiger to Vijay Singh, sure. Those are REALISTIC because it actually happened in REAL LIFE. WAKE UP, THEY NEVER PLAYED AGAINST EACH OTHER. In order to figure out who's the best ever, they have to actually play against each other IN THEIR PRIMES. We can't answer the question "who's the best". Not everything in life can be figured out with statistics folks. If Jack was better than Tiger's competitors, then how can you predict how Tiger would've done against Jack. We can't just guess at those things and that's why we will never know who's the best golfer. I've just proven why all your stats are worthless in a comparison between Jack and Tiger. Tiger's beating Jack's records against people OTHER THAN JACK. Let's look at Tiger's competition. Vijay crushed Tiger in 2004 but didn't like the attention of being #1. Phil spends 1/2 of his time with his family and 1/2 for golf, so he'll never give his all. Tiger beat Bob May for a major(Bob who??). Mike Weir, Jim Furyk, Zach Johnson,ect... All Tiger has to do to beat Jack's record is beat these millionaire golfers who aren't hungry enough to protect Jack's records. The average golf fan doesn't know that Jack was in a world of his own just like Tiger and also that Jack didn't have anybody to catch. He held the record without any big reason to win more than 18 majors. Here's something else to think about: If the best golfer's from all different eras played together in their primes, maybe the best golfer wouldn't be Tiger or Jack. Maybe it would be Bobby Jones or Ben Hogan. We'll never know and there's absolutely no way of knowing.

]]> By: david schockett http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-11452 david schockett Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:00:40 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-11452 One aspect of this comparison that people seem to neglect when this discussion comes up is the level of competition that these golfers faced in their respective eras. Which, in turn, directly impacts the individual's performance. Obviously. Now when Tiger first appeared on tour, there were a lot of good golfers out there; Phil, Seve, Bernhard, Ernie, Curtis Strange, Davis Love III, etc. But there were no killers out there. There wasn't another Tiger already out there dominating the tour. When Jack arrived on tour fresh from an historic career at OSU, there was already a Jack on tour. His name was Arnold Palmer and not only was he the singular dominant force on the tour, he was, at the time, considered to be the most dominant player in the history of the game. AND he was in his prime. With all due respect to Phil or Vijay. Tiger doesn't have an Arnold to compete with and never has. I don't know the numbers but I wonder how many of Jack's 19 2nds at majors would have been wins if it were not for Arnie. Or Gary Player for that matter. Another guy I consider to be better than any of Tiger's current group of competitors. There are obviously a ton of different metrics and issues (equipment improvements, course designs, etc.) that you can look at to try and make this excruciating comparison, but the aspect of competition seems to be at least as compelling as any of them. One aspect of this comparison that people seem to neglect when this discussion comes up is the level of competition that these golfers faced in their respective eras. Which, in turn, directly impacts the individual's performance. Obviously. Now when Tiger first appeared on tour, there were a lot of good golfers out there; Phil, Seve, Bernhard, Ernie, Curtis Strange, Davis Love III, etc. But there were no killers out there. There wasn't another Tiger already out there dominating the tour. When Jack arrived on tour fresh from an historic career at OSU, there was already a Jack on tour. His name was Arnold Palmer and not only was he the singular dominant force on the tour, he was, at the time, considered to be the most dominant player in the history of the game. AND he was in his prime. With all due respect to Phil or Vijay. Tiger doesn't have an Arnold to compete with and never has. I don't know the numbers but I wonder how many of Jack's 19 2nds at majors would have been wins if it were not for Arnie. Or Gary Player for that matter. Another guy I consider to be better than any of Tiger's current group of competitors. There are obviously a ton of different metrics and issues (equipment improvements, course designs, etc.) that you can look at to try and make this excruciating comparison, but the aspect of competition seems to be at least as compelling as any of them.

]]> By: Dave Koster http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-9345 Dave Koster Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:48:26 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-9345 [quote comment="9316"]I have searched in vain for Tigers stats for 2007 - I know he won two majors but how many touraments did he play (and win)?[/quote] Don't search in vain, search in the PGA Tour website. http://www.pgatour.com/players/00/87/93/ He was 7 for 16. 43.75% 7 is what I projected for him and he actually won more in 2006 than I thought. So he's ahead of the pace. I'm still thinking Tiger will overtake Jack. Maybe sooner than I thought. Craig Byren said on February 2, 2008:

I have searched in vain for Tigers stats for 2007 - I know he won two majors but how many touraments did he play (and win)?

Don't search in vain, search in the PGA Tour website.

http://www.pgatour.com/players/00/87/93/

He was 7 for 16. 43.75% 7 is what I projected for him and he actually won more in 2006 than I thought. So he's ahead of the pace.

I'm still thinking Tiger will overtake Jack. Maybe sooner than I thought.

]]> By: Craig Byren http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-9316 Craig Byren Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:51:44 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-9316 Wow - fascinating stats. The thing about stats is that they can alway be used to support whatever argument you like to make. I have no real strong bias towards Jack or Tiger. I marvel at Tigers dominance today and I am sure seeing Jack in his heyday was seriously impressive. One thing that you cannot argue is that the "job" of a professional golfer is to win tournaments (and preferably majors). If Tiger choses to do this by playing less tournaments a year then that is his choice, but you cannot use this to argue that he is better because of a better %. So the real comparison is the number of wins (and majors) and we still have another 8 years to compare Tiger and Jack before Jack began his decline.... I have searched in vain for Tigers stats for 2007 - I know he won two majors but how many touraments did he play (and win)? Wow - fascinating stats. The thing about stats is that they can alway be used to support whatever argument you like to make. I have no real strong bias towards Jack or Tiger. I marvel at Tigers dominance today and I am sure seeing Jack in his heyday was seriously impressive. One thing that you cannot argue is that the "job" of a professional golfer is to win tournaments (and preferably majors). If Tiger choses to do this by playing less tournaments a year then that is his choice, but you cannot use this to argue that he is better because of a better %. So the real comparison is the number of wins (and majors) and we still have another 8 years to compare Tiger and Jack before Jack began his decline.... I have searched in vain for Tigers stats for 2007 - I know he won two majors but how many touraments did he play (and win)?

]]> By: Henry T. http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-8766 Henry T. Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:03:35 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-8766 If you haven't seen Jack play golf more than a little clip here and there, you're not qualified to choose who the best ever is. To say Tiger's the best ever is to say that he'ld beat Jack in a head to head. See why records and stats mean only so much? There's no way of knowing who would win more since Jack's never had the same circumstances as Tiger. They'ld have to both be in their prime, use the same equipment (old or new), play the same course conditions and that's not even mentioning Jack ran a demanding business and tended to a large family of 5. I hate to say but Tiger may actually not be any better than Jack's best. That's how fierce Jack was. Or on the other hand they might be equal. There's nothing to prove they weren't equal. How much of a pity is it that they'll never play each other!!!! If you haven't seen Jack play golf more than a little clip here and there, you're not qualified to choose who the best ever is. To say Tiger's the best ever is to say that he'ld beat Jack in a head to head. See why records and stats mean only so much? There's no way of knowing who would win more since Jack's never had the same circumstances as Tiger. They'ld have to both be in their prime, use the same equipment (old or new), play the same course conditions and that's not even mentioning Jack ran a demanding business and tended to a large family of 5. I hate to say but Tiger may actually not be any better than Jack's best. That's how fierce Jack was. Or on the other hand they might be equal. There's nothing to prove they weren't equal. How much of a pity is it that they'll never play each other!!!!

]]> By: bruce erikson http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-8120 bruce erikson Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:44:05 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-8120 In Jack's day, the fields were always the same old same old...Tiger has to contend with a zillion practised players shooting for the gold ring that ironically, Tiger because of his talent and charisma has created. But just the facts scenario becomes both of them...they were the greatest of their respective eras and what more could you ask of either of them? In Jack's day, the fields were always the same old same old...Tiger has to contend with a zillion practised players shooting for the gold ring that ironically, Tiger because of his talent and charisma has created. But just the facts scenario becomes both of them...they were the greatest of their respective eras and what more could you ask of either of them?

]]> By: Josh Craig http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-6805 Josh Craig Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:20:55 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-6805 I agree with Erik that Tiger playing in less tournaments makes what he has done even more impressive. He would brake 100 wins easily if he played in as many lackluster tournaments like lefty does. And to stan, the reason everyone falls apart when tiger is infront is because they know they cant win, when he is ahead in the final round the tournament is locked up. Tiger woods is the greatest golfer of all time easily. No disrespect to Jack. But tiger will surpass 100+ wins and 20+ majors, and then no one will be able to argue about who is the greatest. J.C. I agree with Erik that Tiger playing in less tournaments makes what he has done even more impressive. He would brake 100 wins easily if he played in as many lackluster tournaments like lefty does. And to stan, the reason everyone falls apart when tiger is infront is because they know they cant win, when he is ahead in the final round the tournament is locked up. Tiger woods is the greatest golfer of all time easily. No disrespect to Jack. But tiger will surpass 100+ wins and 20+ majors, and then no one will be able to argue about who is the greatest.

J.C.

]]> By: stan mason http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-6190 stan mason Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:47:59 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-6190 sandtrap has anyone considered the competition tiger is competing against versus that of jack let alone the technology of the the equipment they are playing with. imagine jack at 22 with a titanium driver---fred funk can hit over 300 yards now when in jack's era, a drive that long was almost unheard of. also, where is tiger's analog of lee trevino, arnie, gary,tom weiskopf, johnny miller, billy casper, gene littler, bruce crampton, bruce devlin, hale irwin, larry nelson, etc.. tiger looks over his shoulder to see maybe ernie els, phil, retief, etc., but mostly it's boo weekley, bubba watson and guys like that. hell, tom lehman, our rider cup captain only won 5 times on the tour and all of thea above named jack era competitors probably won more than 20. so, in my mind jack is the greatest and even if tiger surpasses his major record, i will chalk it up to decreased level of competition. when tiger is in front, everyone else falls apart. stan mason sandtrap
has anyone considered the competition tiger is competing against versus that of jack let alone the technology of the the equipment they are playing with. imagine jack at 22 with a titanium driver---fred funk can hit over 300 yards now when in jack's era, a drive that long was almost unheard of. also, where is tiger's analog of lee trevino, arnie, gary,tom weiskopf, johnny miller, billy casper, gene littler, bruce crampton, bruce devlin, hale irwin, larry nelson, etc.. tiger looks over his shoulder to see maybe ernie els, phil, retief, etc., but mostly it's boo weekley, bubba watson and guys like that. hell, tom lehman, our rider cup captain only won 5 times on the tour and all of thea above named jack era competitors probably won more than 20. so, in my mind jack is the greatest and even if tiger surpasses his major record, i will chalk it up to decreased level of competition. when tiger is in front, everyone else falls apart.

stan mason

]]> By: Alan Stewart http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-4262 Alan Stewart Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:06:45 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-4262 Given that players like Funk are still winning on the PGA Tour in their late 40's and early 50s, it is reasonable to assume Tiger will be winning at that age as well. I am believe Tiger's performance will not decline at the same rate as Jack's; however, if you conservatively estimate the same rate of decline as an equal ratio to 2025, Tiger can be expected to reach age 50 with more than 90 Tour wins. Given Tiger's focus and conditioning, I expect him, with good health, to have more than 100 wins and 20+ majors. Imagine the numbers if Tiger played as many events as Vjay! He'd already have the 60 wins Johnny Miller estimated for his career back in '96... "maybe 60, at the outside". Given that players like Funk are still winning on the PGA Tour in their late 40's and early 50s, it is reasonable to assume Tiger will be winning at that age as well.

I am believe Tiger's performance will not decline at the same rate as Jack's; however, if you conservatively estimate the same rate of decline as an equal ratio to 2025, Tiger can be expected to reach age 50 with more than 90 Tour wins.

Given Tiger's focus and conditioning, I expect him, with good health, to have more than 100 wins and 20+ majors.

Imagine the numbers if Tiger played as many events as Vjay! He'd already have the 60 wins Johnny Miller estimated for his career back in '96... "maybe 60, at the outside".

]]> By: Best of the Numbers Game | The Sand Trap http://thesandtrap.com/columns/the_numbers_game/tiger_and_jack#comment-2984 Best of the Numbers Game | The Sand Trap Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:21:38 +0000 http://thesandtrap.com/uncategorized/tiger_and_jack/#comment-2984 Over the past year or so, I've covered a lot in The Numbers Game. Driving distance, the 40-30-20-10 rule, all were fun to research and write about. Next year, someone else will take the reins and still have plenty of numbers to look at. Over the past year or so, I've covered a lot in The Numbers Game. Driving distance, the 40-30-20-10 rule, all were fun to research and write about. Next year, someone else will take the reins and still have plenty of numbers to look at.

]]>