Jack hit it much shorter than Tiger, so by "degrees offline" we don't know who was "more accurate."
Jack played to wider fairways than Tiger typically plays to (which bounced and rolled out less, too), which would increase a player's fairways hit percentage.
You aren't comparing apples to apples, hence my comment that you haven't actually "proven" this to be true.
He wasn't "so far ahead of anyone." Jack was, throughout his career, more often behind several players in any given year.
Tiger won more Vardons than Jack.
Tiger won more money titles than Jack.
Tiger was also player of the year more times than Jack.
@turtleback, I believe, made a post at one point that detailed every year of Jack's career and talked about the years he could have won the Vardon or the POTY or the other awards, or what year he was clearly the best golfer. Long story short: the facts don't support your, uhhhhh, "recollection."
Statistically Jack was straighter both in percentage and he ranked higher relative to his peers in an era that placed a higher premium on accuracy. And it should just intuitively be correct, because Tiger is known for being inaccurate off the tee. The end. Can I definitively prove Jack would be much better than just top 10? No. But Jack was so far ahead of anyone during his time and before with his record and his continued well play into more recent times. Jack was runner up for the Vardon Trophy in 1983 past his prime. The quality of play didn't jump that much in the thirteen years between that point and when Tiger joined. Jack won ten money titles despite playing fewer tournaments than any other top golfer in his era. He didn't even qualify for the Vardon Trophy most years. Jack was the first or second best player every year of his career up until age 40 regardless of whether he won player of the year in the same way Lebron James or Michael Jordan is the best player every year regardless of who they give the MVP to. Jack was not just another very good player most years who had a long career. He was the best or second best nearly every year of his career up to 40.
I use other sports because I like people who have studied such things, not random internet opinions. That's why I linked the Ted talk. Baseball has been studied more than any sport.
A guy just made the assertion Babe Ruth would be MEDIOCRE AT BEST against Hank Aaron's pitching. I can't prove that Babe Ruth would be a star in Hank Aaron's era with 100% certainty. But you can get 99.9% of the way there. Close enough.
Here is Bill James pointing out how far of statistical outlier Babe Ruth adjusting for changes in era I feel like the guy who revolutionized how sports are analyzed has more credibility than random internet poster. And he was looking at 1927 to today. Hank Aaron played 40 years ago.
On Babe Ruth Lost In Time | Articles | Bill James Online
Ummmm, he's ranked 61st NOW, less than a few months AFTER his win.
That win greatly boosted his ranking.
And you're wrong.
Here's the thing, man: I don't use the OWGR or this "50-60" to support my claims re: strength and depth of field.
The bottom 50% of the field is better than 90% of the fields from the 60s and 70s.
I said 50-60 and you picked someone ranked 61. That is a hair split that actually favors my point. I said it happens once or twice a year. Not enough to justify that strength of field today is a major factor in the comparison between Jack and Tiger. The fact that the bottom half or more of the players in Tour events are better now than 50 years ago doesn’t mean that much when it’s the top 1/4th of the players doing almost all the winning anyway.