Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest - Page 166

I guess I didn't make it clear that the comparison was Jack's, not mine. In his 1997 autobiography he said Tiger only needed a 9-iron on Augusta's 15th, right after he said his best drive ever left him a 7-8 on the same hole. I assume he knows whether or not it's a fair comparison. Earlier in the same chapter, he mentioned that Tiger's hip speed was 20% faster than any of the other top dozen or so tour players measured.

As for Haney's book, I have no idea how far Kuehne could hit it on Hank's range, but I do know he's never won a PGA Tour event, and seldom contended, so maybe he would have done better to enter the long drive exhibitions. Lots of those guys are longer than the winners on tour. And IIRC, Haney also said that Tiger insisted on using a ball that cost him ten yards, because he wanted more spin.

Haney started coaching Tiger in 2004, i.e. nine years after the time Jack was talking about. Nobody is saying Tiger is the longest player now, or in 2004, but in 1995-6, using clubs and balls that weren't even the state of the art for that time, and would be considered primitive today, he was at or near the top --- certainly he was comparable to Jack in his prime, in that they were both much longer than average, and they both had extra reserve length, when needed, that other players couldn't match. Since then, many other players have caught or passed Tiger in length. It's impossible to understand, since everybody knows that pro golfers have gotten steadily worse since 1980, but there it is.

No you don't. Not for the topic of this thread.

Pole vaulting isn't really a sport measured against other people. If you were talking purely about how far Jack or Tiger could hit a particular club, you'd talk about equipment, but if they're using the same equipment as their peers, then you don't really have to consider equipment except whether it narrows or widens the gap. In this case, better equipment narrows the gap, making it more difficult for Tiger to separate himself.

I'm not talking about driving distance. Don't care. Purely talking about them as overall golfers.

 

Which is exactly the comment that Brocks made, to which VOX was responding.  Brocks was comparing a drive Jack hit in the 60s to a drive Tiger hit on the same hole 30 years later.  Apparently, Tiger hit it about 10 yards farther, and Brocks wants us to conclude that this means Tiger was "longer" than Jack.

 

Okay. That's still not the topic of the thread.

That is not true. There is no dispute that at his best, Tiger was longer with modern equipment than Jack was with older equipment, and there is also no dispute that it's not a fair comparison. I don't know or care how they would have done with the same equipment, because, as Iacas correctly notes, it has nothing to do with who was a better golfer. Nobody thinks John Daly belongs in the top five of all time.

But I was responding to Vox's claim (which I quoted in my post) that "In their primes with the same equipment, it would take a driver and wedge for Tiger to reach Jack's best drive." He gave no evidence for his claim.

When I was playing golf in the late 60's, I wasn't especially long, and I hit my wedge 130, so I would give Tiger at least 140 with a 1960's wedge. In other words, taking Jack's word for it that his best drive was 340, Vox was claiming that Tiger's best drive with Jack's equipment would have been 200 yards.

What I wanted people to conclude was that he was mistaken about that.

Thats a good question The equipment has changed quite a bit between when Jack played and now. It would be interesting to see what Tiger could shoot and if is strategy would change using the clubs Jack played with
 

That isn't what the OP said. He said Jack on is best drive hit something like driver 8 iron while Tiger hit driver 9 iron.  That may or may not be 10 yards. Maybe Tigers 9 iron was 20 yards longer than Jacks. Or maybe the tee box was 20 yards closer when Tiger was playing. Or the wind was blowing 15 mph with Jack. Or the fairway was harder for Tigers drive so he got another 10 yards of roll. No one can say.

 

Both Tiger and Jack were longer than the field when they first came out. That is independant of equipment.  In Tigers case, the field has pretty much caught up. Tiger has been averaging 300+-5 yards for pretty much all of his career from the 43.5 steel driver in 97 to whatever he is using now. Some of that is that it you see more 3 woods and the like off tees. In the early years that was always a top 5 number. Now it is a  more like a top 20 number.

 

You guys need to go back and reread.  The original comment was that using the same equipment it would take a driver and wedge for Tiger to reach Jack's drive.  Brocks then quoted JACK'S comment from 1996 indicating how much longer Tiger was than him, comparing what they hit at 15 at Augusta.  How can anyone have a discussion with you guys when you can't even keep straight what people said?

 

zipazoid:  every thread sucks when you can't counter the argument with anything other than "because I say so".

 

 

Not every thread, just this one.

 

This thread sucks cuz it's gotten to 166 pages of regurgitation of each person's take on the subject. The shelf life of this wore off about 80 pages ago.

 

And it's not 'because I say so' - it's because the record says so. Stop being condescending.

How do you know what VOX meant by "a wedge"?  He could have meant a 15-yard pitch, or a chip, or a bunker blast.

 

I don't think anyone took the "driver and a wedge" comment seriously, to include the person who posted it.  It was simply meant as a hyperbolic way to assert that Jack was longer.  Countering that comment by comparing 2 drives hit 30 years apart is absurd.  It might be useful if the comparison included length of the holes (was it the same?), and details about the exact equipment actually used by each player.  A comparison of average drive length (of the field) for each of those years on tour, and the two years on either side would help as well.

 

Regardless, the "who was longer" is but one very small component of "who was better".  As Brocks pointed out, Hank Keuhne hit the ball miles but never won squat.  Obviously Jack and Tiger both gained an advantage over fields due to their length, so the really relevant comparison is not "who was longer", but "who was longer relative to their own peers".

"Who is longer" is not the topic being discussed. It's, at best, a small sub-component.

 

...which is exactly why I posted the 'this thread sucks' pic. It's gotten so far off-topic that we're now debating who hit it farther off the tee - like it even matters.

 

Okay. So let's say we concede that Tioger hit is farther than Jack. So? How does that support Tiger being better?

 

This is what I meant by nuancing the debate to death. I am accused of 'because I said so' when I state 18>14. But if you're on the 14 side of the debate you have to come up with rationalizations to put it ahead of 18, and the latest rationalization is Tiger hit it farther than Jack. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. My point is, it does not matter.

 

I'm just cutting to the chase, guys. And those supporting Tiger don't like that. You want to convince me at 18 v 14 doesn't matter. I'm saying not only does it matter, it's all that matters.

 

I'm not supporting Tiger--don't think anyone here would accuse me of that.

 

However, Brocks makes a very solid argument on this point.  18>14 is not the ONLY relevant comparison.  It is a very, very large component of the comparison, but not the only.  Total wins, POYs, scoring titles, money titles, and career endurance are also very relevant.  Jack and Tiger are very close in total wins with the slight edge to Jack.  Tiger has more POYs, scoring titles, and money titles.  Jack showed incredible career endurance, with 24 years separating his major wins; if we decided today, Tiger's career endurance is not looking so great.  Just looking at those figures, and those figures alone, their careers are very close, and the smart bet is that Tiger will win at least 5 more tournaments. 

 

But then, you add in 18>14, and Jack is the clear winner.

 

We've beaten ourselves to death over who had stronger competition, and there is simply no good answer to this question.  There are good arguments on both sides, but none is convincing.  So, you simply have to look at the stats.  And the stats are weighted heavily in favor of Major wins.  Give Tiger 10 more total wins and 2 Majors, and I'd accept an argument that they're tied. 

 

Thank you. This is what I have been trying to say (your whole post, not just what I highlighted).

 

I want people to understand (if that's possible but I doubt it) that I beleive Tiger is a strong second to Jack. He's done things Jack never did. But Jack has doen one thing that Tiger has yet to do - the number of Major wins. That's hardly 'one statistic' in the overall comparison - it's THE statistic the greats are measured on.

 

This debate is premature - we are comparing a completed career to one still in progress. Time will tell if Tiger supplants Jack. Let's revisit when Tiger's career is done,.

Swell. You are entitled to that opinion.

The funny thing is, when turtleback posted that you are saying exactly that, you denied it, and said you're using your critical thinking to give a well thought out and reasoned argument as to why Jack > Tiger.

And just by the way, nobody said 18 v 14 doesn't matter. We just take the view opposite to yours, i.e. is it NOT all that matters.
Edited by brocks - 5/7/12 at 4:07pm

 

Gosh thanks. Nice to know I am entitled to my opinion.

 

And you are entitled to yours. So we're all swell now.

 

The thread sucks but you can't help posting to it.

 

As to condescending, when all you have to offer is 18>14 condescension is all you deserve.

 

 

As to the complaints about veering off into who hit it further, that particular detour (Tiger would have to hit a driver and wedge to reach Jack) was spawned by a Jack supporter responding to a message that was FIVE YEARS OLD, from the very first page of this thread.  So complain to VOX, your fellow traveler, about that.

 

And as Brocks said, no one is saying that 18>14 has no weight, we are arguing that is one, even a big one, among many factors  - and Tiger is ahead in virtually every other measure of career achievement.  It is just about the only advantage Jack has left (yes I know that Jack is ahead by one in PGA tour victories, but 2 of them were team championships with Palmer as his partner, so Tiger is ahead by 1 in individual championships).  Yes there is an element of nuance involved, which is probably why you just don't get it.  Balancing various factors takes thinking and judgment.  Setting a single number standard, as you like to do, doesn't require thinking.  But it does require consistency, in order to avoid a charge of special pleading, something you do not have since you still won't say you had Hagen at GOAT up until the 1972 PGA, when Jack only had 10 majors. 

 

If majors was the sine qua non of career assessment then you would HAVE to have had Hagen as the GOAT before Jack (I don't include Jones because it is only by a long long stretch that his Amateurs, US and British) can be considered majors given the fact that hardly any of the world's best players played in them) .  Do you have Player ahead of Palmer?  Do you have Watson ahead of Sam Snead and Gene Sarazen?  Do you have Trevino ahead of Byron Nelson?  All of these are mandatory in your one size fits all standard. 

 

I understand your desire to have it all rest on 18>14 because every other argument you've tried to make has been destroyed by reference to the historical record.  If that be condescending, make the most of it.