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 233

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

 
  • 69% (1630)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (710)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2340 Total Votes  
post #4177 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

It is all here already in this thread.  If he wants to find it he can.  Repeating it again will have no effect, as your exchange with him amply demonstrates.

 

If you have a moment, then, consider it a favor and find it and quote it. :) No need to re-type it… just find it and quote it, with some text like "Here @BugDude". He doesn't want to find it, but sometimes ya gotta slap people in the face with a cold wet fish. :D

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

Tiger was clearly the dominant player (not just the best player in the world for the year) for at least 10 years (1999, 2000-2003, 2005-2007 (2008 is arguable but let's not count it), 2009, and 2013).  I think you would be hard pressed to find 7 years where Jack was as dominant over his competition as Tiger was over his in these years.

 

Just leaving that there for BugDude. Who will hopefully not come back with Nicklaus's Ryder Cup record against Maurice Bembridge and company! :D

post #4178 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugDude View Post

 

Jack competed against historic world class players during his career, and probably a lot more of them

 

Probably not.  But even if one concedes that, it should be pointed out that "history" is a function of time.  Comparing who played with more historical figures is a non-sequitur.

post #4179 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugDude View Post
 

 

 

 

OK, here's a side-by-side comparison by category:

 

    Jack   Tiger
         
Majors 1st   18   14
2nd   19   6
Top 3   46   24
Top 5   56   31
Top 10   73   38
         
         
PGA Tour Wins   73   79
2nd   58   29
Top 3   167   127
Top 10   182   185
         
Senior PGA Tour wins 10   0
Senior Major wins   8   0
         
Amateur Wins   18   21
Amateur Majors   2   3
         
Total Professional Wins   116   106
         
US National Team Appearances:      
         

Ryder Cup Record, Player       17-8-3                         13-17-3

 

Amateur:        
Walker Cup 1959 Winners    
Walker Cup 1961 Winners 1995 Loss
Eisenhour Trophy 1960 W T&I 1994 Winners
Americas Cup 1960 Winners    
Americas Cup 1961 Winners    
         
Pro:        
Ryder Cup 1969 Tie 1997 Loss
Ryder Cup 1971 Winners 1999 Winners
Ryder Cup 1973 Winners 2002 Loss
Ryder Cup 1975 Winners 2004 Loss
Ryder Cup 1977 Winners 2006 Loss
Ryder Cup 1981 Winners 2010 Loss
World Cup 1963 W T&I 2012 Loss
World Cup 1964 W T&I 1999 W T&I
World Cup 1965 Winners 2000 Winners
World Cup 1966 Winners 2001 Loss
World Cup 1967 Winners    
World Cup 1971 W T&I    
World Cup 1973 Winners    
         
Dunhill Cup     1998 Loss
Presidents Cup     1998 Loss
Presidents Cup     2000 Winners
Presidents Cup     2003 Tie
Presidents Cup     2005 Winners
Presidents Cup     2007 Winners
Presidents Cup     2009 Winners
Presidents Cup     2011 Winners
Presidents Cup     2013 Winners
         
Captain:        
Ryder Cup 1983 Winners   0
Ryder Cup 1987 Loss   0
Presidents Cup 1998 Loss   0
Presidents Cup 2003 Tie   0
Presidents Cup 2005 Winners   0
Presidents Cup 2007 Winners   0
         
         
Ryder Cup Record Player 17-8-3   13-17-3
         
Total Team Record 20-2-2   10-10-1

 

 

Over the course of their entire careers up to this point, one can hardly say that Tiger totally dominates Jack in every other regard.  When evaluating the entire golfing career in terms of amateur, PGA, majors, total professional wins, Senior tour, and representing the entire United States as a golfer in Team competition, it appears Jack edges him out in the entire body of work.  Don't just count majors?  OK, count total professional wins.  Jack 116, Tiger 106.

 

And just for giggles Jack has designed and constructed more golf courses than any single person in the world.  That's not playing golf, but it sure takes a lot of total golf knowledge, vision, and impact on the game.

 

If you care to look up all of his accomplishments, the number of records he still holds, and the awards he has received please feel free to do so.  I'm not going to post them all, but when you compare them it's obviously weighted towards Jack.  But Jack has done that over 50+ years.  Perhaps Tiger will eclipse those marks by the time he reaches Jack's age and then I would agree.  But at this particular point in time, he's not there yet.  He could suffer a career ending injury tomorrow and he'd be done.  We're not counting potential, but where they both stand in their entire respective bodies of work at this point in time.

 

Just my opinion.

One other item left out of your list was the total number of events.  A quick google search show Nicklaus had played 594 events in his complete career to the 351 event Woods (from his site) has played so far (not sure how accurate the Nicklaus numbers are, but let's use them for comparison).  Nicklaus has played 243 more event, or 40% more events in his complete career.  So you are comparing a full career to 60% of a career.  You cannot make the final analysis until the second career is complete.  All we can go on is estimating what Woods will do in the remaining 40%.  Woods' win percentage per tournament entered is much higher than Nicklaus' (26.0 vs 19.4%).  Even if his pace reduces (he won five in 2013, hardly a slow down), Woods should surpass Nicklaus.

 

Until Woods' career is complete, we are only guessing.

post #4180 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugDude View Post

 

After his competitive golf career he has built a golf empire in golf course design and architecture.  His prominence in the number of golf courses he has personally been involved in designing and building throughout the world in phenomenal.  

Yeah well Tiger Woods is taller so if we're going to start throwing irrelevant stats into the mix there's mine.

post #4181 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post
 

Yeah well Tiger Woods is taller so if we're going to start throwing irrelevant stats into the mix there's mine.

And his career earnings just topped $1.4 Billion dollars, which is the Gross Nation Product of a few nations.

post #4182 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

And his career earnings just topped $1.4 Billion dollars, which is the Gross Nation Product of a few nations.

 

And Jack still has four more majors...... bwhahahaha  

post #4183 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post
 

Yeah well Tiger Woods is taller so if we're going to start throwing irrelevant stats into the mix there's mine.

 

Don't forget that Tiger has also bagged more porn stars.  Advantage Tiger.

post #4184 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post
 

Yeah well Tiger Woods is taller so if we're going to start throwing irrelevant stats into the mix there's mine.

 

Don't forget that Tiger has also bagged more porn stars.  Advantage Tiger.

+1 

post #4185 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

Don't forget that Tiger has also bagged more porn stars.  Advantage Tiger.
Only that we are aware of...
post #4186 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

Only that we are aware of...

Oh no you di-in!
post #4187 of 4542
There's a story that goes like the National Enquirer caught Tiger in an extramarital affair two years prior to the story breaking in media. The Tiger camp afraid of the story going public agreed to have Tiger do a cover shoot and story for Men's Fitness in exchange for their not going public.
post #4188 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan Jeff View Post

There's a story that goes like the National Enquirer caught Tiger in an extramarital affair two years prior to the story breaking in media. The Tiger camp afraid of the story going public agreed to have Tiger do a cover shoot and story for Men's Fitness in exchange for their not going public.

 

Since that really has nothing to do with the topic, and it's old news, so it gets the old…

 

:offtopic:

post #4189 of 4542
My apologies OGS!
post #4190 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

If you have a moment, then, consider it a favor and find it and quote it. :) No need to re-type it… just find it and quote it, with some text like "Here @BugDude". He doesn't want to find it, but sometimes ya gotta slap people in the face with a cold wet fish. :D

 

 

Here @BugDude

 

 Here is one:

 

From post 3573

 

Quote:

But wait.  I thought it was impossible to compare players of different eras.  I guess that is only when it is convenient.

 

If Hogan fell short on total wins then so did Jack, since he never matched Snead.  And now does not match Tiger.

 

And Jack does not match Vardon, since he falls short in the number of British Opens won.

 

And Jack does not match Tiger in 5 win seasons.

 

And Jack does not match Tiger in money titles

 

And Jack does not match Tiger in Vardons (and don't give me any crap about Jack not playing enough rounds - you set the standard when you said "Either he won 70 times or he didn't. And he didn't." about Hogan.  And Jack's failure to play enough rounds was his choice, WW2 and the accident weren't Hogan's choice.

 

And Jack didn't match Tiger in 8+ win seasons.

 

And Jack didn't match Tiger in 3 major win seasons

 

And Jack didn't match Tiger in consecutive majors won.

 

And Jack didn't match ANY of Tiger's top three consecutive win streaks

 

And Jack didn't match Tiger's no cut streak.

 

And Jack didn't match Tiger's 10 Player of the Year awards.

 

Wow, this game is fun!!

 

But all of that is meaningless in the face of 18>14

 

See, Erik they SAY that is not their metric but when it comes right down to it, that is all they have.

 

From Post 4115:

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertpig View Post
 

1963 - won two of the major championships, US Open and PGA Championship

1965 and 66 - won the Masters back-to-back

1978 - achieves triple grand slam

1980 - Wins the US Open & PGA Championship

 

Notable achievement - was PGA Player of the Year back to back in 1972 & 1973 and 1975 and 76; 

And THIS is what you claim is more dominant than Tiger?

 

2000, won 3 major championships (and then won a fourth in a row with the Masters win in 2001).

 

2001 and 2002 won the Masters back to back (contrary to your assertion)

 

2005 and 2006, won the British Open back to back

 

1999/2000 and 2005/2006 won the PGA Championship back to back

 

2008 achieves triple career grand slam (6 years younger than Jack did it)

 

But how about some other measurements of dominance?  Like consecutive win streaks.

 

Tiger has won 7 in a row, 6 in a row, 5 in a row, and 3 in a row twice.

 

Jack has one winning streak of 3 in a row and nothing better.

 

Since you bring up Player of the Year awards, Jack has indeed won it back to back twice and added one other for a total of 5.

 

Tiger OTOH, won it 5 times in a row (1999-2003), lost it in 2004 to Vijay, and then won it the next 3 years in a row - that is 8 out of 9 years.  And won it 3 other times for a total of 11 times.

 

Tiger also has 9 Vardon Trophies Jack has 0)

 

So remind me again of how Jack was more dominant that Tiger?

 

From post 3452"

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

 

Also, referring to Nicklaus as "self serving" really was not needed in your post.  It made you come off as a hater trying to find a way to discredit and took away from your argument.  It also probably turned off a lot a readers to your point.

 

I don't think Nicklaus is self-serving at all.  He probably didn't even come up with that metric himself.  Winning Majors has been very important for a very long time. 

 

My quote was a direct quote from Jack, so yes, he was a big part of that metric.  AFTER he had the most majors he said that the fairest way to compare players of different eras was number of majors.  He KNEW that he had already had many more opportunities than players in those other eras.  He already KNEW that he would have many MORE opportunities to play majors, increasing his advantage in opportunities over the players in earlier eras.  Take Harry Vardon.  When you say players chose not to play majors you miss on two counts.  Vardon never had an opportunity to play a Masters or a PGA.  And travel in that era made playing the US Open a very exceptional undertaking, expensive in both time and money.  Players in Hogan's era effective only could play in 3 majors a year at most because the PGA and British Open were scheduled too close together to play both.  Oh, and Jack knew that when players in Hogan's era did not play majors in the early 40s it wasn't through choice or injury, it was due to WW2.  

 

You said that winning majors have been very important for a very long time.  Based on what?  You yourself claim that these historically great players didn't play as many as Jack because they chose not to (and in Hogan's case were hindered by injury).  How important could they have been n the best players were just choosing not to play them?  Do you seriously contend that majors had the same import back then and that players had the same opportunities to play them that Jack had when the top player over a 60 year period only amassed 5 years when only one of them played all four majors while Jack himself, in his prime, did it 19 times? And even if we were to concede that majors were important, that is a far cry from saying that most majors should be the metric.  NO ONE thought Hagen was the GOAT when Jack passed him in pro majors.  If most majors is really important then how do you explain the fact that Jack is the only person who has ever been acclaimed the GOAT by the majority of the golf world based on having won the most majors?

 

So sorry, it was self-serving.  Just as it would be self-serving today if Tiger came out said that the only fair way to compare players in different eras in by the total number of majors, WGCs and Players they have won.  If he were to do so the screams would be heard throughout the golfing world.  Yet when Jack effectively did the same thing for most majors the golf world just silently nodded.  And no, I am not a Jack hater.   As anyone who has read what I have posted here would know Jack was my very first favorite player and is still one of my favorites.  But that doesn't mean he hasn't disappointed me from time to time.  And this was one of those occasions, because his "fairest way" to compare players of different was just about the most UNFAIR way to compare players of different eras.  

 

If one is going to declare that a certain metric is the fairest way to compare players in different eras, doesn't fairness demand that the metric should in some way attempt to adjust for  the circumstances of and differences between those eras?  Did Jack's statement do that?  Did a failure to try to adjust for the differences in eras work directly to Jack's benefit, and effectively declare him the GOAT?  And isn't that practically the definition of self-serving?

 

In what way was record in majors more "fair" than just number of PGA tour events won?  At least, barring the WW2 effect, the players in the Hogan era had similar opportunities to amass PGA tour victories.  In fact passing Sam Snead in total tour victories WAS Jacks goal and his way of getting recognized as the greatest at an earlier point in his career.  But then it looked like it wouldn't happen and there was this other metric which, while patently unfair to every great golfer of the earlier eras, had the advantage of already being owned by Jack.

 

And note, I am not arguing for any particular metric.  I am arguing AGAINST the current metric as being about the most unfair one that could be devised, given the scope of golf history.

 

As to those who think the discussion is pointless because we will never agree?  This is sports and this is a discussion board.  If we are only going to discuss things on which agreement is likely or even possible then the discussion is going to be thin.  I know there will be people who will hold to the most majors metric no matter what anyone says - and some of them have fallback positions prepared based on number of seconds or perceived strength of field.  I know there are people who will hold to the position that there is no metric by which players of different eras can be compared (although for them it would be nice if they were consistent and directly dismissed Jack's claim that the most major metric is the only fair one).  But there are still a lot of interesting points that can be discussed.  Like the relative importance of longevity based accomplishments versus dominance accomplishments.  About the scope of the accomplishments that should be considered.  About the effect of improvement in equipment.  About strength of fields.

 

I find these things interesting and worth discussing   If no one agrees then the thread will die a quiet death.  But this is what my point was in starting this thread.  Not to be limited to Jack and Tiger.  Not even to advocate for Hogan.  But to discuss what the metric SHOULD be.  And to get there I had to destroy the logical basis for the current most majors metric.  I think I have done that although I recognize that not everyone would agree.  But I do notice that no one has actually even attempted to refute any of the specifics of my analysis.  I hope someone does, as that would be an interesting discussion.

 

Although I used your comment as the jumping off point for the above, most of it is not directed specifically to you.

 

 

 

From post 3244:  (That first sentence is specially germane in light of your list, @Big Dude

 

Quote:
 

As soon as someone tries to argue that seconds matter, in the face of all of the other areas in which Tiger leads Jack (most money titles, most victories, most victories in a row several times over, most Vardon trophies, most player of the year awards,  largest winning margins, highest winning percentage, etc.) you know they realize that they have a losing hand.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post

How deep do you think the fields were in jacks era compared to the last 15 years?

 

How deep do YOU think they were.  Do you have any idea how few Americans played the British Open in the years Jack was winning it?  For example Billy Casper was a world class player, better than Jack in the 1968-1970 period.  He played for a long time - had 50 PGA victories.  In his WHOLE CAREER he played the British Open 5 times.  Even after Palmer revived the British Open, through the 60s and 70s it was common for less than 25 Americans to play it - at a time when Americans dominated golf.

 

How about the PGA?  99 of the top 100 were in last weeks.  But in Jack's time there were far more club pros in the field and it was much harder for international players to get into the field.

 

And then there is Jack's own statement that in the mid 90s when he wrote his autobiography there were 3 times the number of players with the ability to win majors than in his time.  And since then with the rise of the international players and the increase in money that factor has just gone up.

 

 

Hey, it isn't my fault, @iacas made me do it.  :whistle: 

post #4191 of 4542
Jack dominated some of the greats, and when he lost, he was second or third. Loved watching him in the 70's & 80's. Miss his character. Today I compare Michelson to Palmer, and Tiger to Jack, but Jack is the better golfer.
post #4192 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by CobraSvt View Post

Jack dominated some of the greats, and when he lost, he was second or third. Loved watching him in the 70's & 80's. Miss his character. Today I compare Michelson to Palmer, and Tiger to Jack, but Jack is the better golfer.

Who was Jack dominating when he missed all those cuts? a1_smile.gif
post #4193 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by CobraSvt View Post

Jack is the better golfer.

Based on?
post #4194 of 4542
Quote:
Originally Posted by CobraSvt View Post

Jack dominated some of the greats, and when he lost, he was second or third. Loved watching him in the 70's & 80's. Miss his character. Today I compare Michelson to Palmer, and Tiger to Jack, but Jack is the better golfer.

Which greats did Jack dominate?

 

And in which specific years was Jack the dominant golfer?

 

(said the spider to the fly)

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