Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest - Page 167

You guys crack me up. You really do. Your passion for this topic is either inspiring...or slightly creepy.

 

First off, what's with the Hagen fixation? You keep stating that when Jack was at 10 Hagen was GOAT. Like that matters - Jack finished with 18. Who cares what the hypothetical order was when Jack was at 10?

 

Then you get into what-ifs with other player's number of majors - Trevino ahead of Nelson & so on. That's not what this is about - it's about Tiger v Jack. I see what you're trying to do - blow holes into my 18>14 point by using that logic down the line. But it doesn't. It's irrelevant.

 

For the sake of, honestly I don't know the hell what, I'm gonna give this one more shot.

 

I have stated the following, repeatedly:

 

Tiger has done a number of things Jack never did. Winning the US Open by 15, Masters by 9, four majors in a row, 6 tour wins in a row. All very impressive, all valid reasons for making Tiger the GOAT. I can see why someone would do so.

 

I have also said this, repeatedly:

 

Tiger's career isn't finished yet. So this whole discussion is premature. It's not fair to compare a completed career to an unfinished one. But since we are, at this point Tiger is a strong, close second to Jack, with the nod going to Jack due to...here it comes....

 

18>14.

 

So let's check back when Tiger's career is done to do a more accurate assessment. Is that not fair?

Edited by zipazoid - 5/8/12 at 7:30am

Let me test my understanding here:

 

You aren't just looking at Major victories and giving the nod to Jack.  You compared their two careers thus far and believe that except for Majors they are about even to this point, but since Jack has 18 and Tiger has 14 wins at Majors this gives the advantage to Jack. 

 

If I'm understanding you correctly then I don't think it's an unfair assessment. 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

 

Yes - this is what I have been trying to say. The bulk of my assessment has been how they have performed in majors. Jack has won more majors but Tiger has won majors more impressively. Also a nod to Tiger's 6 tour wins in a row - Jack never did that. And I will admit I haven't delved any deeper than that cuz I don't think strength of fields or how far they hit the ball or whatever really matters. Jack shouldn't be penalized cuz some think he beat inferior competition - he beat whoever entered the events, which is all he could do.

 

And really, you can not - or should not - belittle 18>14. That's four majors. That's Phil Mickelson's career to date. It's a large gap, and the only thing, really, that still gives the nod to Jack.

"18 events" vs "14 events"  is too small of a data set to be statistically significant at 0.05 in a 2X2 type of analysis (e.g. Fisher's exact).  And of course a Gaussian distribution cannot be assumed without distribution data involving a large number of events, which is why a non-parametric method is essential.

 

Let the battle proceed ...... 

Thank you, you're very kind. And if I say so myself, it's even more inspiring, awesome even, when you consider the fact that some of us have only one case to argue, rather than alternating between "I look at several factors and apply my critical thinking," and "18 > 14 is ALL that matters."

 Jack didn't do all he could do. He could have won 27 majors. He could have closed out majors better instead of coming in 2nd 19 times.  He could have beaten Snead's win record. And so on.  As it is he has slightly better numbers than Tiger against significantly weaker fields.  

 

Quote:

 

Your opinion.  Far from the majority view.

 

Actually, I think it's the majority view. Even if it's not, I'm certain it's not "far from" the majority view.

 

Okay, so you think that.  Can you PROVE it?  Clearly, no one on this forum cares what anyone else THINKS, only what they can support with facts and data.

 

In doing so, please attempt to quantify the word "significantly".  Tell us exactly how much "weaker" the fields were then using metrics that allow for an empirical comparison.

It was Jack's own view, in 1996, before his own record got threatened.

For what it is worth, my view is also Jack's view. Here is one quote from  his autobiography

 

 

And the fields have only gotten deeper since the 96.   How can I prove how it is harder to win majors now? Look at all the guys between 1960-1986 that won 6 or more majors

Jack Nicklaus

Gary Player

Tom Watson

 

Arnold Palmer

Lee Trevino

 

Look who did it between 1986-today

Nick Faldo

Tiger Woods

 

Why are there 1/3 as many guys racking up 6 wins? Because the fields are much deeper. If the fields are shallow you end up with the majors concentrated in a half dozen players. If the fields are deep, you get one or two outliers and the everyone else with 2.  This is basic stats. Why is big major clump in the guys born in the 40s and guys born in the 10s,20s or 30s? Because the earlier group didn't the same desire and opportunity to win those majors. 

 

 

 

 

You can make a new thread, if you want, with a simple poll. "Are the fields significantly deeper now than they were when Jack Nicklaus played?" If this thread is any indication, you'll get a ton of responses, and probably win the May Kickstarter award.

 

After you...

 

(BTW, I could prove it. I could poll every golfer and ask if they think the fields are stronger or weaker now. You didn't ask me to prove whether the fields were stronger or weaker, you asked me to prove what the viewpoints of people are. As it is, I don't really care if you disagree, but I think most people would say the fields are stronger now, including Jack Nicklaus.)

IMO it would be much harder to win majors now than it was 40 years ago whether the fields are stronger or not, because since the mid-80's or so, every top player has made majors his #1 goal. They build their schedules around them, they try to peak for them, they play practice rounds at the major venues weeks in advance, etc.

Jack was the first guy to even play all four majors every year, let alone build his schedule around them. If you look at the records of his peers, they all have a bunch of DNP's for the British Open, except for Gary Player, who has a bunch of DNP's for the PGA.

 

It's a completely circular argument.  Fewer people won Majors in Jack's day (or there were more people racking up 5 or more majors) because there was less competition.  The exact same reasoning could support the conclusion that fewer people won Majors in Jack's day because there were more really great players.

 

And, the argument even turns on itself:  you could also just as easily argue that Tiger won so many because the competition now is so weak.  Neither argument has more inherent truth to it.

 

And the consensus view of golf analysts and former greats (guys like Miller, Player, Palmer, Watson, and Trevino) seems to be that Tiger's record is somehow diminished because he has no true rivals--guys who could stand up to him and win majors when he was dominating.  BTW:  a million people quoting Jack's opinion is not a majority opinion based on reasoned analysis, it's simply a million people parroting a single opinion.

 

And we're exactly back where we started.  These are all arguments, opinions, and viewpoints.  The issue is far from settled. 

 

I asked you to prove that the majority of people think that Jack's fields were "significantly" weaker.  To do so, you'd have to quantify "significantly".

 

Nah. The poll would simply have to include the word "significantly." Then people could vote, and if the majority was not "far" from what you suggested, I'd be correct in claiming victory.

 

Enough of this crap. It's going nowhere fast. Move on.