Originally Posted by Wally Fairway
How about the run of majors in 1970's, when he played in every major (40), missed 1 cut, finished out of the top ten 4 times, 26 top 5 finishes, and 8 majors (if you want it a little narrower - '71-'73 (12) 4 wins & finished out of the top 10 once....but that is just my list.
I'm not saying who is best - IMO, Tiger has much to much golf left in him at his age to make a final analysis
Don't give me ranges, give me specific years in which you think Jack was clearly the most dominant golfer. I don't think you want to base Jack's dominance on just 1971, 1972, and 1973, Because as good as those years were for Jack they do not hold a candle to Tiger's 2000-2002 period.
Jack: 18 wins, 4 majors, 3 money titles, 2 POY, 0 Vardons
Tiger: 19 wins, 6 majors, 3 money titles, 3 POY, 3 Vardons.
and then there is Tiger's 2005-2007
21 wins, 5 majors, 3 money titles, 3 POY, 2 Vardons
Jack's next best discrete 3 year period (64-66 or 65-67, depending if you go for more wins or more majors) aren't even close to being in the same ballpark.
Or how about this. In Jack's best 10 year period, 1964-1973 he had 44 wins including 9 majors in 211 events including 40 majors. That is a winning percentage of 20.9% overall and 22.5% in majors
In Tigers best 10 year period, 1999-2008 he had 58 wins, including 13 majors. And Tiger did it in only 173 events including only 38 majors. That is a winning percentage of 33.5% overall and 34.2% in majors.
Look at those winning percentages. There were both of their prime years. And it is no contest. Tiger's winning percentage is 50% higher than Jack's.
So Jack supporters, in this debate, can make a lot of different arguments, but dominance is not one of them.