Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

[MS256]

No. The MUCH larger pool is today. If I'm going to use that criteria (and I can't not use it) I have to go with Tiger. Trying to judge by what opponents did means nothing to me because they were in the smaller pool also. There could be multiple All-Stars in a weak league that put up all kinds of numbers, that may not even make the starting lineup in a stronger league. That's been the nightmare for recruiters and in drafts in athletics for years. Hard to see that kid that hit 500 against multiple pitchers that made All-State (in 1A) isn't as good as that kid that hit 300 against no pitchers that made All-State (in 6A).

[bplewis24]

BTW, Tiger has never won the Masters back-to-back

Well, hell, that settles it then!

[turtleback]

He has come back many times, just not in a major.

Which is more indicative of quality, though, coming back from a deficit or almost always winning once one has the lead?  Especially when that guy GETS the lead at an unprecedented rate.

Quote:

Well, hell, that settles it then!

LOL, especially since Tiger DID win the Masters back to back.  I think the pigman has now figured out he cannot put BS nonsense out there without getting called on it.

[desertpig]

He has come back many times, just not in a major.

Which is more indicative of quality, though, coming back from a deficit or almost always winning once one has the lead?  Especially when that guy GETS the lead at an unprecedented rate.

LOL, especially since Tiger DID win the Masters back to back.  I think the pigman has now figured out he cannot put BS nonsense out there without getting called on it.

Yes - my bad. He did win it 2001 and 2002.

[iacas]

Yes - my bad. He did win it 2001 and 2002.

So can you address the issue of "dominance" per the above posts? How does Jack top Tiger in "dominance" now aside from major victories?

[turtleback]

Yes - my bad. He did win it 2001 and 2002.

So since this accomplishment was so important to you when you thought Jack did it and Tiger did not, how do you now assess the fact that Tiger won back to back British Opens, and Jack never did, and Tiger won back to back PGAs TWICE and Jack never did?  Or is winning a given major back to back only significant when you think Jack did it and Tiger didn't?

[desertpig]

So since this accomplishment was so important to you when you thought Jack did it and Tiger did not, how do you now assess the fact that Tiger won back to back British Opens, and Jack never did, and Tiger won back to back PGAs TWICE and Jack never did?  Or is winning a given major back to back only significant when you think Jack did it and Tiger didn't?

While statistically, Tiger has won more, he still has to win more majors than Jack in order for him to be "GOAT". I hate to use this analogy, but it's the closest that comes to mind. Michelle Kwan - decorated figure skater in U.S. history -  The standard for greatness in her sport. She's won more World Championship gold medals than anyone except for one other US skater (Maribel Vinson) but there's that asterisk in her record - she has not won the Olympic gold medal.

Same with Tiger; he's so good, that we put him to a higher standard - that is, winning more majors. While he's won the British Open more times than Jack, ultimately he is judged by what really matters to a lot of people - winning more majors (the Masters, US Open, The Open Championship and the PGA Championship) than Jack. That is something Jack has over him. And until he wins more, all his achievements will have that proverbial asterisk beside his name.

Only when Tiger wins 19 majors will I concede to what the majority thinks of him in this forum. Until then, it's still Jack for me.

[iacas]

While statistically, Tiger has won more, he still has to win more majors than Jack in order for him to be "GOAT". … Only when Tiger wins 19 majors will I concede to what the majority thinks of him in this forum.

Others don't define GOAT by one criteria as you do.

[turtleback]

While statistically, Tiger has won more, he still has to win more majors than Jack in order for him to be "GOAT". I hate to use this analogy, but it's the closest that comes to mind. Michelle Kwan - decorated figure skater in U.S. history -  The standard for greatness in her sport. She's won more World Championship gold medals than anyone except for one other US skater (Maribel Vinson) but there's that asterisk in her record - she has not won the Olympic gold medal.

Same with Tiger; he's so good, that we put him to a higher standard - that is, winning more majors. While he's won the British Open more times than Jack, ultimately he is judged by what really matters to a lot of people - winning more majors (the Masters, US Open, The Open Championship and the PGA Championship) than Jack. That is something Jack has over him. And until he wins more, all his achievements will have that proverbial asterisk beside his name.

Only when Tiger wins 19 majors will I concede to what the majority thinks of him in this forum. Until then, it's still Jack for me.

So all that other stuff you listed was just so much window dressing.  Good thing since it has been shredded.  Your talk of dominance was just so much puppy droppings.  You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.  and when you give your opinion you should be honest as to why it is your opinion.  And you are now revealed as someone who really just goes with the (simpleminded, IMO) argument that 18>14.  At least now we know your real reasoning.

You also might like to work on your facts.  You were wrong about Tiger not winning consecutive masters.  You completely missed the fact that he won specific majors back to back 3 other times. You completely missed the fact that he not only had a triple career grand slam, he achieved it at a much earlier age than Jack.   And you are wrong about Tiger winning more British Opens than Jack.  Tiger and Jack are tied in number of British Opens with 3 apiece (see, true to the facts no matter which side they weigh on) .

If you are going to enter an argument you should get your facts straight and know why you are arguing what you are arguing.  If you want to be taken seriously that is.

[flopster]

While statistically, Tiger has won more, he still has to win more majors than Jack in order for him to be "GOAT". I hate to use this analogy, but it's the closest that comes to mind.

Well it's the last thing you can use to have any relevance in this discussion to be honest, Overwhelmingly people who do not follow golf nearly enough to have an educated opinion on this subject either use the major total or Tigers extramarital problems (which makes absolutely zero sense) as reasoning to why Jack is better.

[geauxforbroke]

While statistically, Tiger has won more, he still has to win more majors than Jack in order for him to be "GOAT". I hate to use this analogy, but it's the closest that comes to mind. Michelle Kwan - decorated figure skater in U.S. history -  The standard for greatness in her sport. She's won more World Championship gold medals than anyone except for one other US skater (Maribel Vinson) but there's that asterisk in her record - she has not won the Olympic gold medal.

And Trent Dilfer is greater than Dan Marino because he won a Super Bowl and Marino didn't. See how stupid that argument sounds?

[Golfingdad]

And Trent Dilfer is greater than Dan Marino because he won a Super Bowl and Marino didn't. See how stupid that argument sounds?

I don't think that sounds stupid at all.  Go Bulldogs!

[phan52]

And Trent Dilfer is greater than Dan Marino because he won a Super Bowl and Marino didn't. See how stupid that argument sounds?

Classic apples to oranges argument. You are going to compare an individual sport to one that has 53 players on the the roster?

[geauxforbroke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

And Trent Dilfer is greater than Dan Marino because he won a Super Bowl and Marino didn't. See how stupid that argument sounds?

Classic apples to oranges argument. You are going to compare an individual sport to one that has 53 players on the the roster?

You're missing my point, which is judging a career based solely on one metric almost never makes sense. I'm not comparing golf to football, only the way in which people judge those who compete in each.

[Golfingdad]

Classic apples to oranges argument. You are going to compare an individual sport to one that has 53 players on the the roster?

You're missing my point, which is judging a career based solely on one metric almost never makes sense. I'm not comparing golf to football, only the way in which people judge those who compete in each.

I don't know about that.  The reason why making the Dilfer>Marino argument is absurd is precisely BECAUSE football is a team sport.  It's unfair, impossible, and just plain silly, to compare individuals in team sports based solely on the accomplishments of the team.  Because those are team sports, championships are considered as part of the resume, but certainly not the most important part.  And, I think, pretty much everybody would agree with that.

In this argument, a lot of people are making the case that ONLY majors matter, and then @turtleback calmly explains to them why they are wrong.  ;)  But even he (I'm pretty sure) would at least agree that majors - while certainly not the only factor - are still, by a fairly large margin, the most important factor.

So, I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to judge people on only one stat, but I agree with Phan that using a team sport as a comparison doesn't really work.

[desertpig]

So all that other stuff you listed was just so much window dressing.  Good thing since it has been shredded.  Your talk of dominance was just so much puppy droppings.  You're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.  and when you give your opinion you should be honest as to why it is your opinion.  And you are now revealed as someone who really just goes with the (simpleminded, IMO) argument that 18>14.  At least now we know your real reasoning.

You also might like to work on your facts.  You were wrong about Tiger not winning consecutive masters.  You completely missed the fact that he won specific majors back to back 3 other times. You completely missed the fact that he not only had a triple career grand slam, he achieved it at a much earlier age than Jack.   And you are wrong about Tiger winning more British Opens than Jack.  Tiger and Jack are tied in number of British Opens with 3 apiece (see, true to the facts no matter which side they weigh on) .

If you are going to enter an argument you should get your facts straight and know why you are arguing what you are arguing.  If you want to be taken seriously that is.

You're missing my point, which is judging a career based solely on one metric almost never makes sense. I'm not comparing golf to football, only the way in which people judge those who compete in each.

My apologies for not getting things straight. Apparently I hit a nerve on that. But my contention - even if people assert that this is "simpleminded", is we judge greatness by the the competition they join. Earlier I mentioned Michelle Kwan not having won an Olympic Gold Medal. Granted it is unfair but it is what people measure her by - because the Olympics is the pinnacle of all skating competitions.

The same way the NBA championship is the pinnacle of a US professional basketball player's career. You may have won all the accolades and awards (i.e. Elgin Baylor for example) but because he didn't a single NBA championship, he can't be called GOAT.

If we can't agree on anything, let's all agree that the reason why the 4 majors ( the Masters, US Open, The Open Championship and the PGA Championship) are considered majors -  is because it is considered the pinnacle of all golf competitions - just like the majors in tennis (Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open). You may win all of the other tennis competition, but if you haven't won any of the 4 tennis majors - then you're not considered in the same bracket as the "greats". While Tiger is great - no denying that, but Jack has won more majors than Tiger. Is it an oversimplification - yes, sure. But in my humble opinion (not trying to convince anyone), it is the measurement that means a lot (at least to me).

Addendum: here's another example of greatness - while there are several horse racing events, there is the triple crown - the Kentucky Derby, Preakness and the Belmont. Only 11 horses have won all three - they are considered great. While there might be other horses that have won more events or won more prize money, but only a rarified few have won all three of these derbies/stakes.

From here I rest my case. I'm sure I'm going to be vilified and insulted some more by more esteemed and better golfers whose opinions matter more than mine but I will hold these as my opinion and mine alone. I believe I am still entitled to it.

[iacas]

The same way the NBA championship is the pinnacle of a US professional basketball player's career. You may have won all the accolades and awards (i.e. Elgin Baylor for example) but because he didn't a single NBA championship, he can't be called GOAT.

That was a mistake on your part right there. You had an out in saying "apples to oranges, team competition" but apparently you believe Trent Dilfer is a better QB than Dan Marino. Okey dokey…

If we can't agree on anything, let's all agree that the reason why the 4 majors (the Masters, US Open, The Open Championship and the PGA Championship) are considered majors -  is because it is considered the pinnacle of all golf competitions - just like the majors in tennis (Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open).

Why do we have to agree on that? The WGCs could be considered the pinnacle. Or The Player's Championship (which would suit your case as I believe Jack won three to Tiger's two), because it has the strongest field in golf (while the PGA has the strongest of the four majors).

But even if we stipulate to that, it doesn't change the fact that many people consider more factors than "18 > 14."

You may win all of the other tennis competition, but if you haven't won any of the 4 tennis majors - then you're not considered in the same bracket as the "greats". While Tiger is great - no denying that, but Jack has won more majors than Tiger. Is it an oversimplification - yes, sure. But in my humble opinion (not trying to convince anyone), it is the measurement that means a lot (at least to me).

Tiger hasn't "won any of the other four majors." So he's in the same bracket. 14 puts him in the same bracket as 18, at which point in time Tiger wins virtually EVERY OTHER CATEGORY you could consider. The only real category he "loses" is "majors." If you judge based SOLELY on that, there's your answer. The vast majority do not, however, base solely on that.

Heck, you could base your argument solely on 18 and 14, but award "difficulty points" to Tiger that Jack doesn't get because of the strength of the competition. You could reasonably conclude that 14 majors in today's world was tougher than 18 in Jack's time.

From here I rest my case. I'm sure I'm going to be vilified and insulted some more by more esteemed and better golfers whose opinions matter more than mine but I will hold these as my opinion and mine alone. I believe I am still entitled to it.

Vilified? No, people are simply pointing out how easy it is to disagree with your position, and how your position doesn't even account for anything like strength of field, let alone the body of work outside of the majors.

If Jack won 18 majors and 150 PGA Tour events, by your logic, someone who won 18 majors and no other events at all would be his equal. Win 19 and he'd be superior to Jack.

[geauxforbroke]

I don't know about that.  The reason why making the Dilfer>Marino argument is absurd is precisely BECAUSE football is a team sport.  It's unfair, impossible, and just plain silly, to compare individuals in team sports based solely on the accomplishments of the team.  Because those are team sports, championships are considered as part of the resume, but certainly not the most important part.  And, I think, pretty much everybody would agree with that.

And yet many people still place quarterbacks with far inferior career numbers ahead of Marino, simply because he never won a superbowl. I agree that it's absurd; that's my point. Set aside the fact that golf is an individual sport and football is a team sport (I realize the difference and understand that you can't compare the two), the basic fact still remains that you can't judge a career solely on one metric as @desertpig seems intent to do.