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 255

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

 
  • 69% (1634)
    Tiger Woods is the man
  • 30% (718)
    Jack Nicklaus is my favorite
2352 Total Votes  
post #4573 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post



Jack had about a million 2nd places finishes. OK, I exaggerated that number a bit, but you get the point. Jack did play against a lot of great players who knew how to win. a1_smile.gif
I agree but Tiger is better at winning. 9 times better at winning and counting. Finishing 2nd just means you were the 1st loser.
post #4574 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post
 

Side Note: Jack may have 73 official PGA Tour wins, but he has 22 other wins from around the world durimng his prime. About 20 of the 22 would have been against players of tour quality. Events like the Australian Open, World Match Play and World Series of Golf. He never gets credit for those wins. 

 

Gokf Digest did a comparison of Tiger's first 73 wins vs. Jack's 73 PGA Tour wins. They give the edge to Jack for some pretty interesting reasons. 

 

Nicklaus' record shows more variety and scope in how it was achieved. His 73 wins were done in 35 events, played over 49 courses. His total reflects a more wider-ranging schedule than Woods, a schedule that had very few limited-field/no-cut events to feast upon; Jack won just six of such tournaments.

 

Woods took strong advantage of limited-field events, with 22 victories, most of them of the World Golf Championship type. Woods' 73 wins were done in 26 events done over 43 courses.

 

Another telling Woods stat is that he built his record by dominating a small group of events; nearly half his victories, 35, have taken place in just six tournaments: Arnold Palmer Invitational, WGC Bridgestone/NEC Invitational, Buick Invitational, BMW/Western, Memorial and WGC American Express Ch. Nicklaus' best domination took place in the Masters, PGA Championship and Tournament of Champions.  

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2012-06/jack-nicklaus-tiger-woods-pga-records

 

 

It is interesting that the pro Tiger group brings up an idea that the bottom of the field in Jack's era was not competitive, but the bottom of the field in Tiger's era, at least in 22 of his wins, did not even exist. Tiger is the undeniable champion where winning limited field events is concerened. 

 

Limited field how? The Arnold Palmer Inv, Bridgestone Inv, Buick Inv, and Memorial all bring in some of the strongest fields all year. So how is it limited? 

 

Jack has 73 PGA Tour wins, 22 other wins which would be some tournaments overseas. Mostly they were the Australian Open and the World Series of Golf (Firestone). 

 

Tiger has 79 PGA Tour wins, and 37 European Tour Wins (Wiki says 40, but they double up by including The Open as both PGA and European Tour venues)

 

Just saying that Tiger has played more significant tournaments overseas compared to Jack. Given it isn't Jack's fault, the purses were horrible, and travel was expensive for overseas events. It took Arnie going to The Open to make that Major important.  

 

Golf Digest just didn't want to claim Tiger is better than Jack. 

post #4575 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

Limited field how? The Arnold Palmer Inv, Bridgestone Inv, Buick Inv, and Memorial all bring in some of the strongest fields all year. So how is it limited? 

Jack has 73 PGA Tour wins, 22 other wins which would be some tournaments overseas. Mostly they were the Australian Open and the World Series of Golf (Firestone). 

Tiger has 79 PGA Tour wins, and 37 European Tour Wins (Wiki says 40, but they double up by including The Open as both PGA and European Tour venues)

Just saying that Tiger has played more significant tournaments overseas compared to Jack. Given it isn't Jack's fault, the purses were horrible, and travel was expensive for overseas events. It took Arnie going to The Open to make that Major important.  

Golf Digest just didn't want to claim Tiger is better than Jack. 
Tiger has 37 Euro Tour wins? Wow, I had no idea. I know he used to go to Thailand every year and has been to China a few times but 37? Wow, those slipped by me.

Edit: Wait, that must be counting the 22 WGCs and the 3 Opens, so ok, 12 stand-alone makes more sense.
post #4576 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post


Tiger has 37 Euro Tour wins? Wow, I had no idea. I know he used to go to Thailand every year and has been to China a few times but 37? Wow, those slipped by me.

 

Ok got to edit that, 

 

Its only 9, Wiki likes to double up on more. Had to take out all the Majors and some other tournaments. Like the Bridgestone Inv. is both a PGA and Euro Tour tournament. Stupid WIKI!! :whistle:

post #4577 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScouseJohnny View Post

The basic irony of this thread never ceases to amuse me. So much hand-wringing over whether Jack or Tiger is the GOAT; the essential reality is that, in golfing terms, they are the same guy. If they weren't, we'd also be asking ourselves whether Faldo, or Seve, or Snead, or Hagen, or Vardon, or Hogan, or whomever wasn't also, perhaps, the Greatest of All Time. In some respects, all of the aforementioned were, too...but for the fact:



 



"Greatest of All Time" doesn't exist. Every man exists only in the time that he is given; for professional sportsmen, in sporting terms, that time ain't long. Jack: the superstar of the 1960s and 1970s; Tiger: the superstar of the 1990s and 2000s.



 



Why are Tiger and Jack so important?



 



1./ In a game dominated, in geographical terms, by the USA, they are both Americans; both of whom competed at their sport within living memory.



 



2./ They are quintessentially American sportsmen - they are to golf as Joe Namath was to football, Joe DiMaggio was to baseball, or Michael Jordan was to basketball. That's why American youths pestered their parents for a MacGregor persimmon driver on account of Jack, or a Nike titanium-balloon-on-a-stick thanks to Tiger - and then went to the driving range or golf course. Tiger & Jack  "moved the needle, " (much as I hate that phrase). Are American sports-obsessed kids ready to get that fixated about a meticulous German or curly-haired Northern Irishman who blows hot and cold?



 



3./ They are both charismatic and looked the part at the peak of their powers. Jack the Golden Bear, Tiger immaculate in his red-and-black Sunday best - in a sport that has seen some truly horrible images [the kids aren't going to look at Daly or Poulter and think, "Now, where do I buy those pants?"]



 



4./.They won - a lot more than anyone else during their respective eras - [see 1./ (above)].



 



In other words, they're both great. Comparison is largely meaningless.


 



My point exactly.I haven’t argued for either golfer in this discussion but rather that it can’t objectively be determined. Jamo is trying to make a case that one opinion is better supported than the other by quantitative facts. I feel that those facts are no more conclusive than the simple fact 18>14 (or 6,7,8 &9 > 4&5). Obviously a case could be made for both but my point is that the statistics provided do not conclusively support his case to the EXTENT that he thinks. The contention that depth of field and a wider gap may suggest Tiger’s superiority but, again those numbers alone don’t disprove the possibility that Jack’s competition included 5 or 6 guys the equal (or better) of Tiger’s primary 1 or 2. Depth of field alone can NOT be used to draw that conclusion. If I can expound on my example of the Cuban Baseball team, because that goes directly to the “depth of field” issue, the US national team has had a very difficult time beating the Cubans. There are obviously FAR more baseball players in the US, and FAR more top level baseball players in the US (a MUCH greater “depth of field”) yet the Cubans are better at the top! It’s an anomaly but it happens in sports all the time. The Pennsylvania wrestling situation is similar (and for iacas, HS wrestling is “big” in CA and NY as well and CA has FAR more participants and NY has slightly more, yet PA still dominates at the college level. Believe me I’ve been involved with scholastic wrestling for a long time and I know of what I speak, everyone involved in the sport knows of this anomaly and there is NO statistical explanation for it). Other examples include the 1983 NFL quarterback draft and the 1980’s – 1990’s baseball players coming out of the Dominican Republic. If those depth of field statistics convince you personally that Player, Watson, Palmer….were no better than Duval, Singh, Furyk…then what you have used to form your opinion is no more valid than someone who uses Tom Watsons current results to form theirs. It is still just an opinion not a fact. What is a fact however is that neither opinion can be PROVEN or DISPROVEN with any degree of certainty. That’s a fact.
Comparing Jack to Tiger is much like comparing Babe Ruth to Hank Aaron. Ruth revolutionized the sport and was much farther ahead of his contemporaries but abused his body to the point where he shortened the life of that run of dominance. Hank Aaron went about his business in a quieter more steady manner, putting up his 35 -45 home runs a year and achieved a number (755)that many feel qualifies him as the GOAT. Tiger is Babe Ruth, Jack is Hank Aaron. Take your pick, but please don’t try to sell it with statistics. That’s nonsense.
post #4578 of 4685

4,577 posts. Have we figured it out yet? 

post #4579 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post
 

4,577 posts. Have we figured it out yet? 

 

Yes we do, it's called 70% to 30% in favor for Tiger. With over 2300 votes, which is a large sample size. 

post #4580 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post
 

Nicklaus' record shows more variety and scope in how it was achieved. His 73 wins were done in 35 events, played over 49 courses. His total reflects a more wider-ranging schedule than Woods, a schedule that had very few limited-field/no-cut events to feast upon; Jack won just six of such tournaments.

 

A "limited field, no-cut" event only really has relevance if you're talking about missing cuts. The fact that Tiger wins so many of them doesn't relate to this very well… he's still gotta beat 75 to 130 players, and many of them in these events are the best 75-130 players.

 

Again, these "limited fields" have a much, much higher strength of field, with the top 50+ players almost all playing in them. And yet Tiger wins them regularly. Heck, you could say he won them "regularly" even if you took all but his wins at Firestone and spread those eight out amongst the other WGC events. Most guys don't have eight wins in their careers. Tiger has eight in one event with a very stiff field!

 

Plus, The Memorial, The Arnold Palmer, etc. are "invitationals" but they too have quite strong fields (and a cut, since they have 120-ish pros playing). He wins those a lot too.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

 

Nicklaus: 73 wins were done in 35 events, played over 49 courses.

Woods: 73 wins in 26 events over 43 courses.

 
So… almost the same number of courses. Fewer events, but in Jack's day, events didn't last year to year. Jack won the Seattle Invitational early in his career, and the event was played once or twice more before it folded.
 
And… when you play 18 events per year, and many of them are hosted at the same courses, and you win a lot of the time, you're going to end up winning multiple events at the same course. The stability in the golf schedule - not present in Jack's day - aided that. But those facts don't suit your narrative, so, let's just ignore them…
 
This kind of analysis punishes Tiger for winning the WGC 8 times at Firestone. And yet he's also won twice at St. Andrews. He's won at Congressional. He's won at Augusta, and he's won at U.S. Opens. It's not like he only wins at certain types of courses. He just has a limited schedule, and the Tour is relatively stable these days, so they all end up playing the same courses more frequently than in Jack's day. And yet, over 73 wins, they were only six courses apart, despite the higher variability and volatility in Jack's day.
 
Imagine how silly this type of argument would be if Tiger played 15 events per year (on the same courses each year), but randomly won 50% of the time he played. After 20 years he'd have 150 victories, but detractors would say "Yeah, but he only won them on 15 courses" SO WHAT?!?! Dude's got 150 wins against some awfully stiff competition, relatively speaking.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

It is interesting that the pro Tiger group brings up an idea that the bottom of the field in Jack's era was not competitive, but the bottom of the field in Tiger's era, at least in 22 of his wins, did not even exist. Tiger is the undeniable champion where winning limited field events is concerened.
 
Consider that the field sizes for these limited field events is often well over 100 players. They're "invitationals" and invite only "top" level players. The WGC being played right now has 76. Most of them are the TOP 76 players in the world, making for one of the stiffest fields, particularly since y'all think nobody outside the top 50 is capable of winning anything anyway.
 
Two of Jack's first three wins were Invitationals. His sixth was the Tournament of Champions (he won five of those, and they're quite limited fields). Wins # 11, 12, and 13 were Invitationals as well.
 
The list continues.
 
Jack won a lot of limited field events as well.
 

 

And to be clear, my argument for Tiger as being slightly better than Jack (not by a lot, but definitely a better golfer) is not solely based on strength of field. It includes many of @turtleback's favorites, including POTY awards, Vardons, margins of victory, wins in a year, etc.
 
Jack loses in almost ALL of those.
 
P.S. Suggesting that winning WGCs, which have some awfully strong fields, weakens the case for Tiger is silly, IMO.
post #4581 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by late347 View Post

I do think that the Jack Nicklaus had more effective golf swing than Tiger. How many times did Jack overhaul his swing, in his primetime of career, as they say?

He never had to. Cause his opponents sucked.
post #4582 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

He never had to. Cause his opponents sucked.

 

Now THAT is funny.

post #4583 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

He never had to. Cause his opponents sucked.
Except for Palmer, Casper, Trevino, Watson, and Player. a1_smile.gif
post #4584 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

 

 

Golf Digest just didn't want to claim Tiger is better than Jack. 

 

 

It's a vast right wing conspiracy. :-D

post #4585 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Yes we do, it's called 70% to 30% in favor for Tiger. With over 2300 votes, which is a large sample size. 

 

 

 

I do believe that all of those votes were cast during the Tiger era. The fact Jack got any votes, let alone 30% of the votes, is an astonishing testament to just how good he was.

post #4586 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post
 

 

 

 

I do believe that all of those votes were cast during the Tiger era. The fact Jack got any votes, let alone 30% of the votes, is an astonishing testament to just how good he was.

 

 

Way to spin that one (sarcasm)

post #4587 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

 

Way to spin that one (sarcasm)

 

 

No spin at all. Polling by its very nature involves bias's, one of which is recency bias. Other bias's deal with being overloaded with speech for one vs. another. That is why politicians like to spend money on their campaigns. They can just ;pound their message home that way.

 

Loads of those who voted in this poll never saw Jack in his prime but have been inundated with constant praise for Tiger. Any polling expert worth his salt would tell you this poll has a built in bias that way. No biggie that Tiger actually wins the poll here, but it hardly settles anything other than that in the 2008 thru 2014 time period and at thesandtrap.com they took a poll and Tiger won. 

 

Fifty years from now when golfers are asked this question the results could be reversed since we'll know Tiger's full career AND the majority of polling participants will have seen neither of them play.

post #4588 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post
 

 

 

 

I do believe that all of those votes were cast during the Tiger era. The fact Jack got any votes, let alone 30% of the votes, is an astonishing testament to just how good he was.

I bet you that if we took this vote in 1986, Tiger Woods would still hold 70% of the vote. Now that's astonishing! :bugout:

post #4589 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9iron View Post

No biggie that Tiger actually wins the poll here, but it hardly settles anything other than that in the 2008 thru 2014 time period and at thesandtrap.com they took a poll and Tiger won.

2006 actually. May. Tiger didn't even have 14 then. Or 79.

And the poll doesn't ask who will be the GOAT. It asks who is.

Tiger's always led by about 30+%.

It's okay. You're in the minority. It happens.
post #4590 of 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post
 

4,577 posts. Have we figured it out yet? 

 

@iacas is going to build a time machine later this afternoon and set up a match between 2000 Tiger and 1972 Jack

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