or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest - Page 197

Poll Results: Tiger or Jack: Who's the best?

 
  • 70% (1619)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 29% (693)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2312 Total Votes  
post #3529 of 4303
Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl over more girls, boy meets another girl, boy gets girl and climbs to number 1 in the world lol Heck, who can top that? Enough said Tiger wins!
post #3530 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff View Post

Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl over more girls, boy meets another girl, boy gets girl and climbs to number 1 in the world lol Heck, who can top that? Enough said Tiger wins!
Uhg, the new and improved "hollywood" theme for movie plots?
post #3531 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer View Post

I just read this whole thread all at once. My head hurts.

Well, there's your problem.  Next time, try reading it one word at a time and it won't be as bad. ;)  P.S.  Love that avatar. ;)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

"if you're not first, your last" - Reese Bobby

Yeah, but he didn't really mean it ... he was high at the time. ;)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

The fact is that most of the golf world still holds to the "most majors = GOAT" metric.

Actually, I think Erik is right about that.  People may say that it's most majors, but really, I think if we're honest with ourselves, it's just whatever we feel like, because we don't have to justify our own opinions on this sort of thing.

 

Also, the poll shows that Tiger is in the lead by more than a 2 to 1 margin, so I'd say that "most of the golf world" does not think most majors = greatest.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Random nerdy tidbit:  When people bring strength of field into play, I believe that it only matters when you are talking about tournaments or majors LOST.  I don't think it is fair to consider strength of field solely on tournaments won because you can't scale something properly that is off the end of the scale.  Another reason why I think that your (Turtle) idea of considering percentage of majors won (instead of quantity) has merit.

 

I think that all the poll shows is that more members here are of Tiger's era than Jack's.  A lot of members here never saw Jack play unless they watched some of the Wonderful World of Golf reruns on Golf Channel, and those were just what they were, exhibitions.  In an open poll, people vote with their hearts as much as with their heads.  The results of this poll are irrelevant in any statistical sense.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSchott View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

I noticed that the old timers like Snead, Hogan, Palmer etc, did not win their first event until age 26 on average. Tiger won at age 20 or 21. What is the consensu opinion as to how many wins these old timers would have gotten had A) they started on tour at age 21 and B) they did not have time overseas during WW2?

 

Five? Ten? Twenty?
 


This and numerous other variables make it impossible to compare among eras.

 

Ding, ding, ding -- give the man a seegar! d2_doh.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

I noticed that the old timers like Snead, Hogan, Palmer etc, did not win their first event until age 26 on average. Tiger won at age 20 or 21. What is the consensu opinion as to how many wins these old timers would have gotten had A) they started on tour at age 21 and B) they did not have time overseas during WW2?

 

Five? Ten? Twenty?
 

Maybe they weren't good enough before that.  Tiger was.

 

And maybe in those days there was more emphasis on putting the need for earning a living ahead of a silly game, regardless of one's desire to make the game a profession.  While growing up, Tiger never had to do a thing but school and golf.  Despite the fact that he picked a pretty good school academically, I still think that for him, college never more than just a stepping stone to the PGA Tour and an opportunity to further showcase his game.  A similar case can probably be made for Jack, although school was certainly for the education and golf still was an avocation.  Neither was from a fabulously wealthy family like Bobby Jones was, but both were given every advantage necessary to succeed at golf from a fairly young age.  Tiger was headed at the Tour from adolescence, Jack may have headed that way a bit later, but both had the opportunity from childhood.  

 

Hogan had to think first of making a living, second of playing golf professionally.  There wasn't that much money to be made in golf in his day, and it was a lot more difficult to be on Tour, driving from place to place, eating in diners and truck stops, staying in cheap motels.  He can be excused for his late start, but it just emphasizes the fact that you can't compare the different eras in any meaningful way.  Even percentages don't work because of so many other factors which don't match up.

post #3532 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

The results of this poll are irrelevant in any statistical sense.

 

Sure they are. At the very least, they speak towards refuting the idea that "most" people determine GOAT by simply comparing the numbers 18 and 14, which is what Golfingdad was saying (I believe).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

He can be excused for his late start, but it just emphasizes the fact that you can't compare the different eras in any meaningful way.

 

I agree. People weigh many things in determining who they personally feel is GOAT.

post #3533 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

Sure they are. At the very least, they speak towards refuting the idea that "most" people determine GOAT by simply comparing the numbers 18 and 14, which is what Golfingdad was saying (I believe).

 

 

I agree. People weigh many things in determining who they personally feel is GOAT.

 

Why can't it be that most people consider multiple factors, the most important of which is the number of major victories?  I think that is probably a true statement and it would surprise me if you disagreed.  

 

Showing that Tiger is ahead of Jack in that poll doesn't get you very far--they rank 1 and 2 in the number of majors they won. 

post #3534 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Why can't it be that most people consider multiple factors, the most important of which is the number of major victories?  I think that is probably a true statement and it would surprise me if you disagreed.

 

It's been my point that they don't consider ONLY "18 > 14."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Showing that Tiger is ahead of Jack in that poll doesn't get you very far--they rank 1 and 2 in the number of majors they won. 

 

It speaks to disproving the statement that most people consider only that 18 > 14 (as well as those that give that inequality a LOT of weight).

post #3535 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

It's been my point that they don't consider ONLY "18 > 14."

 

 

 

That's your point, we know that.  The problem is that your point is  z8_offtopic.gif     a2_wink.gif

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

It speaks to disproving the statement that most people consider only that 18 > 14 (as well as those that give that inequality a LOT of weight).

 

 

 The OP's point is just that to the extent that performance in majors is a factor, it make more sense to look at % than gross wins.  His point is unaffected by whether the public uses majors as the only factor, the most important of five factors, or the 5th most important of 8 factors.  

post #3536 of 4303

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

That's your point, we know that.  The problem is that your point is  z8_offtopic.gif     a2_wink.gif

 

I get that you think you're being cute (or whatever), but it's not off topic. I believe the general topic here is the metrics by which we determine GOAT, with Hogan serving as an example using a different metric that bumps Jack to third.

 

Besides, I was responding to you, and I agree with you - clearly - that people consider multiple reasons for determining GOAT.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

The OP's point is just that to the extent that performance in majors is a factor, it make more sense to look at % than gross wins. His point is unaffected by whether the public uses majors as the only factor, the most important of five factors, or the 5th most important of 8 factors.  

 

The point is stated fairly clearly:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

The purpose of this thread is to challenge that premise, and in doing so try to get beyond the flawed metric of "most majors = GOAT" that was engendered, with the help of the media, by Jack in a way and for purposes that were clearly unfair and completely self serving.

 

turtleback has stated that a good number of people use the metric he calls "flawed." I have disagreed that most people rely on simply using "18 > 14" in determining GOAT for themselves.

 

Surely turtleback doesn't think the metric is flawed in and of itself - winning more majors is "good" or "more good" than winning fewer. It's been made clear that the way in which he thinks its flawed is its use as the sole or primary determinant of GOAT.

 

So given that, what he really means to say is: "The purpose of this thread is to challenge the premise that Jack or Tiger is the GOAT, and in doing so get beyond the flawed idea of using 'most majors' as the sole or primary determinant of such." If most people don't use "most majors" as the sole or primary determinant, it speaks directly to the topic.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

Who says the greatest has to be Jack or Tiger?  A metric which automatically eliminates every other great golfer in history regardless of merit.  But if you are going to write them out of the discussion solely on the basis of their lack of opportunity to achieve something (most majors) then it is just as reasonable (or unreasonable) to write Jack out of the discussion on the basis of the paucity of his wins in elite field events, like WGCs and other deep field events.  He has, at best, 21 (18 majors plus 3 Players) while Tiger clearly has 34 (14 majors, 18 WGCs, and 2 Players)   So I am justified in questioning why we get to write those other guys out of the discussion based on lack of opportunity when you cite lack of opportunity as a factor in why Jack doesn't have t match Tiger in elite field event wins in order to be GOAT.

 

As you can see, turtleback clearly believes that the numbers 18 and 14 were the only metric used to create that thread (in 2006), even though neither the thread title, poll, or first post mention anything about it. Plus, at the time of the poll's creation, Tiger had won only TEN majors, putting him BEHIND Ben Hogan (though obviously he was still well ahead in terms of percentage wins).

 

Turtleback continues to assume that they've been "written out" of the discussion only because of the numbers 18 and 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. (It's also unclear to whom the "you" is, since it's a new thread and he's not quoting or responding to anyone.)

 


 

So, because I'd asked turtleback to start a new thread if he was going to keep talking about Hogan (though Hogan was simply an example, not necessarily his true personal GOAT), but now it's a bit clearer to me that he was responding to the few people (who I still believe are among the minority) that DO base their judgment solely on 18 > 14, I'm seriously considering merging his thread back into the Jack/Tiger GOAT thread, which is what I believe he wanted all along.

 

I believe now that his point is that "major wins" should not be the sole or primary determinant of GOAT, a point with which I've agreed all along. But I've said that no single metric period - including winning % - should serve as the metric, and we as individuals are free to create our own mishmash of metrics and gut feelings and so on.

post #3537 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

I get that you think you're being cute (or whatever), but it's not off topic. 

 

 

Not cute, no.  Sometimes disagreement sounds harsh without the ability to use inflections of our voices.  The face was an attempt to show that tone wasn't meant to be harsh.  I try not to say things like "I get that you think you're being cute" but sometimes that isn't enough to avoid coming across as a jerk so I add a smiley face or something.  But that's a crappy way to get a point across so we still end up with misunderstandings, I guess.  

 

 

 

I'm wont respond to the rest because I think that in light of your closing paragraph, it would be pointless.

 

 

 

But I do think there's value in saying this, because I think it applies broadly:  Generally speaking, I think when we focus on how exactly the OP phrases something in the original post, we lose some meaningful conversation.  For example, the title of the thread indicates its about whether Hogan is the GOAT.  The part that you quoted above indicates that its about whether "most majors=GOAT" should be the sole determinant.  Then the post goes into whether % is better than total.  But Turtle isn't claiming that % should be the determining factor--that would mean its Hogan is the GOAT and he said he considers it to be Tiger. The point of any particular thread, or any conversation for that matter, is something that evolves as the participants better understand each other's points, and better articulate their own. Too narrow a focus on the starting positions thwarts interesting discussion.

 

 

I was just trying to perform my community service by getting this discussion to go somewhere interesting. 

post #3538 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Actually, I think Erik is right about that.  People may say that it's most majors, but really, I think if we're honest with ourselves, it's just whatever we feel like, because we don't have to justify our own opinions on this sort of thing.

 

Also, the poll shows that Tiger is in the lead by more than a 2 to 1 margin, so I'd say that "most of the golf world" does not think most majors = greatest.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

I think that all the poll shows is that more members here are of Tiger's era than Jack's.  A lot of members here never saw Jack play unless they watched some of the Wonderful World of Golf reruns on Golf Channel, and those were just what they were, exhibitions.  In an open poll, people vote with their hearts as much as with their heads.  The results of this poll are irrelevant in any statistical sense.

Well, regardless of how we're wording it, I think we're agreeing with each other here.  (Bold parts)  The poll shows that people think Tiger is better than Jack by almost a 2 to 1 margin, therefore, we can rightfully assume that they aren't simply going off of 18>14.  That was all I was saying.

 

I think Turtleback made some valid points with the OP of this thread, however, I'm disagreeing with the assertion (as are several of you) that so many people are basing their opinion ONLY on majors won.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Sure they are. At the very least, they speak towards refuting the idea that "most" people determine GOAT by simply comparing the numbers 18 and 14, which is what Golfingdad was saying (I believe).

Correct. ;)

post #3539 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

I was just trying to perform my community service by getting this discussion to go somewhere interesting. 

 

FWIW, I prefer good, appropriate titles that state the topic reasonably well, and a discussion which sticks to the chosen topic (combination of title + first post).

 

I was hoping you'd comment on the bold part about merging this thread back into the Jack/Tiger thread.

post #3540 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

So, because I'd asked turtleback to start a new thread if he was going to keep talking about Hogan (though Hogan was simply an example, not necessarily his true personal GOAT), but now it's a bit clearer to me that he was responding to the few people (who I still believe are among the minority) that DO base their judgment solely on 18 > 14, I'm seriously considering merging his thread back into the Jack/Tiger GOAT thread, which is what I believe he wanted all along.

 

I believe now that his point is that "major wins" should not be the sole or primary determinant of GOAT, a point with which I've agreed all along. But I've said that no single metric period - including winning % - should serve as the metric, and we as individuals are free to create our own mishmash of metrics and gut feelings and so on.

 

See, I knew if I was persistent you would get the point.  I'll attribute the delay to a failing in my own communication skills.

 

Maybe I should have phrased my challenge a little different.  Under what reasonably objective metric OTHER THAN 18>14 can someone conclude Jack belongs ahead of Tiger?  IOW, if we just throw out 18>14, what arguments are there left for Jack.

 

And for the record, my own metric is strongly based on how many years did a player absolutely dominate his opposition.  It is not the sole determinant, but if someone is behind in this one he better have a lot of other things to bring to the table.  

post #3541 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weed Whacker View Post

Oh the problem with your googled list is simply the fact that you only quote headlines. You pulled out vardons! Are you aware tigers eligibility for a vardon is 60 rounds, 20 less than Jacks? Ifyou read past Tigers headlines you would have noted in your cut and paste list that Jack rarely played 80 rounds a year to be eligible. In fact, if you break it down to the now relaxed eligibility Jack would be at 8 as well. So what this means is your trying to stack up measurements to over ride the biggest metrics. The metrics that everyone knows and focuses on, majors. Haha you used vardons........ I can't wait till you measure shoe size.

Now I am discussing like you, highlight your biggest oversight and ignoring the rest....

If I needed a golf partner I would take jack over tiger any day. Tigers accolades are earned and acknowledged loved watching him get into a zone and intimidate the field... What is his future? If he is the greatest his future has to be more wins in majors.

Why I focus majors over vardons....... You can't compare the two era's of golf, easily. Playing schedules, equipment improvements, opponents in the field, venues, etc... The majors are the most consistent measurement of the two era's of golf. Oh and if the list you created meant anything then yes tiger has more wins, then why is Jack still a question? Because those stats as good as they are don't measure up to major wins, unless you fell victim of Tigers PR machine.

 

 

See, Erik, those folks are still out there.

post #3542 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

See, Erik, those folks are still out there.

Do you realize you are quoting the guy who thinks Tiger's greatness comes from a "PR machine?"

post #3543 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

See, I knew if I was persistent you would get the point.  I'll attribute the delay to a failing in my own communication skills.

 

I feel I got the point but simply disagreed with it (or the premise from which it was born) from the outset.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

Maybe I should have phrased my challenge a little different.  Under what reasonably objective metric OTHER THAN 18>14 can someone conclude Jack belongs ahead of Tiger?  IOW, if we just throw out 18>14, what arguments are there left for Jack.

 

I'm still not a fan of that way of phrasing things, as it continues to imply (to me anyway) that most people vote using one metric, and specifically the 18-14 metric. Plus, GOAT voting isn't purely objective for everyone.

 

Threads merged.

post #3544 of 4303
For those who argue Ben should get some leniency based on the fact that he had to "make a living"....

Hogan struggled on tour for a few years, and we've all heard the famous story of how he coasted into (I think) the LA Open with $5 left and won the tournament. Or maybe he made a top-5 and got a decent check, then won a few weeks later. Regardless, once Hogan won, his money troubles disappear from the story line.

If he had won in his first season as a pro, as both Jack and Tiger did, then (sadly) we'd have never heard that story. It is part of the Hogan mystique, but it's a mystique that only exists because Hogan basically sucked for a long time as a pro.

That's not GOAT worthy, and his $$ troubles are not an excuse for his failure to win more, they are the product of it.
post #3545 of 4303

Here's the thing, no one can be completely objective. Its like asking someone who's the greatest musical artist of all time. Most people are highly swayed by who there favorite person is. I know most people, when it comes to golf, will conclude its between tiger and jack, but from there there is some form of bias favoritism involved.

 

 

If i honestly thought about it, lets ask what makes a golfer?

 

1) ball striking

2) scrambling

3) putting

 

Basically all these things add up to what your going to score. Throwing out wins, who's the best? Tiger is. how can i come up with that.

 

Ball Striking - Jack played pretty much a fade majority of the time. Tiger has been known through out the years to hit it high, low, left, right. Tiger is the better ball striker. I am not saying jack couldn't, he chose not to, or maybe it wasn't something he was comfortable with. But tiger willingly curves the ball at will, showing his ability to have superior ball striking.

 

Scrambling - i think is probably the most underrated part of Tiger's game. Not sure about jacks scrambling.

 

Putting - Tiger is one of the best putters of his generation. I think they are both very much clutch putters. You ask them to make a putt under pressure, especially jack, they made it. Right now, not so much for Tiger. But overall i think Tiger was a much better putter of the ball.

 

But this can be seen in the stats. Look at scoring average through out the years. Jack only had 4 times when his scoring average was bellow 70 in his career. Tiger has 16 times his scoring average was bellow 70. 

 

Sorry, but that's dominantly better. Were courses easier back then they were now, if so then it points more towards tiger. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter the field your playing against. If your going to say who is the greatest GOLFER, its ability to put the ball in the hole in the least amount of strokes possible. If some other golfer got hot and beat you that weak, just means they were better that weak. To me, Tiger is above Jack in playing the game of Golf.

post #3546 of 4303
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

FWIW, I prefer good, appropriate titles that state the topic reasonably well, and a discussion which sticks to the chosen topic (combination of title + first post).

 

 

Warning: OT (Click to show)

 

You must loath CNN.com then, huh?  You can routinely find headlines like "Miley said WHAT!!?"  I go there a few times a day just to see how bad their headlines are.  The onion had a great "article" about their post-VMA headlines.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

I was hoping you'd comment on the bold part about merging this thread back into the Jack/Tiger thread.

 

Sorry, I had not read this thread so I couldn't answer that.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Jack or Tiger: Who's the greatest