Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

[zipazoid]

You can only beat who you play against.

So I don't think it is fair to Jack's record to try to assert that Tiger's competition was tougher. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't - it really cannot be proven either way. If I were making the point about Jack, I could point out he had rivals like Palmer, Casper, Trevino, Weiskopf, Watson & Miller. Tiger had....Phil maybe? If I were making ther point about Tiger, I could use stats showing the depth of fields being deeper in his era than Jack's. But the bottom line, it's a subjective test.

So you have to go with each player's performance against their competition. Jack won 18 majors, 19 runner-ups (and NO - that doesn't mean, to the poster a few pages back that I am losing the argument by mentioning Jack's 19 2nd-place finishes...that's pretty effin' impressive). Tiger is at 14 & 6.

Do the math.

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Hey, Mods:  can we add a new category for "post of the year"?  This, more than anything I've ever read, adds some depth to the discussion about whether Jack or Tiger faced tougher competition.  Tiger has realistically lost maybe 2 Majors?  (I'm thinking 2009 PGA to Yang and 2010 US Open to McDowell.)

Looking at the 8 close losses Jack had, 5 of them were when he was in his first 4 years of playing at the highest level.  Three of them were to Trevino, three to Watson, and 1 to Palmer.  I don't know whether this means that Jack was better or worse in each major he won, but it's interesting.

It does show that when Jack went head-to-head against the best of his day in majors, it seems that he lost far more often than he won.  That sticks out to me more than anything:  the level of play by the "greats" of Jack's day seem to have prevented him from getting to maybe 24 majors.

Interesting perspective - show me the Majors that Tiger has won when he wasn't the front runner, you know the ones when he shot lights out on a Sunday to track down the leaders. (it works both ways)

Here are the list of Jacks wins when he didn't have the 54 hole lead:

- 62 US Open (2 down)

- 63 PGA (3 down)

- 66 British (2 down)

- 67 US Open (1 down)

- 70 British (2 down)

- 75 Masters (1 down)

- 86 Masters (4 down)

and here is Tigers list of major wins when he didn't have the 54 hole lead:

- none (a great front runner, but a average guy when he doesn't have the lead)

[x129]

You can definitely prove that fields are deeper using stats.  Against his contemporaries, Tiger has done better than Jack. Jack was 18:9. Tiger  is 14:4. Tour wins is 73:51 for Jack and 72:40 for Tiger.  Both of those favor Tiger by a decent margin.

Some of the guys you list are better in memory than reality. Weiskopf had 1 major. Miller had 2.  That is the career of an Ernie Els, Mark O'Mera, or Jim Furyk type player. Good but not an all time great. You also have to watch out for the fact that Jack's competitors are done but Tigers aren't. Lets say Tiger wins 2 more majors and Rory wins 9, Keagan wins 7, and Phil ends up at 6.   That looks a lot different than the current thing with Phil at 4 and a bunch of guys with 2 and 3.

As far as 19 seconds, the point was that no matter what some people will push Jack as the best ever. Tiger could win 100 tournaments and 20 majors and people will come up with an argument in favor of their hero. It happens in every sport.  Heck I am still pretty sure that Larry Bird was better than MJ and Magic put together.  I am also aware that is a bias based on where and when I grew up.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

You can only beat who you play against.

So I don't think it is fair to Jack's record to try to assert that Tiger's competition was tougher. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't - it really cannot be proven either way. If I were making the point about Jack, I could point out he had rivals like Palmer, Casper, Trevino, Weiskopf, Watson & Miller. Tiger had....Phil maybe? If I were making ther point about Tiger, I could use stats showing the depth of fields being deeper in his era than Jack's. But the bottom line, it's a subjective test.

So you have to go with each player's performance against their competition. Jack won 18 majors, 19 runner-ups (and NO - that doesn't mean, to the poster a few pages back that I am losing the argument by mentioning Jack's 19 2nd-place finishes...that's pretty effin' impressive). Tiger is at 14 & 6.

Do the math.

[zipazoid]

No bias with me. If Tiger goes 20 majors/100 wins he's the best of all time. For that matter, if he gets that 19th major. But as of right now it's 18 to 14.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by x129

Lets say Tiger wins 2 more majors and Rory wins 9, Keagan wins 7, and Phil ends up at 6.

As far as 19 seconds, the point was that no matter what some people will push Jack as the best ever. Tiger could win 100 tournaments and 20 majors and people will come up with an argument in favor of their hero. It happens in every sport.  Heck I am still pretty sure that Larry Bird was better than MJ and Magic put together.  I am also aware that is a bias based on where and when I grew up.

For starters, Keegan Bradley?  7 Majors?  I don't know if you meant that as a joke, but I'm laughing pretty hard.

And you keep saying that if Tiger gets to 19/20, people will still think Jack was better.  Who are these people?  I can't imagine anyone thinking that, with Tiger having more total wins, more Majors, three straight US Ams, etc.  The current discussion as I understand it, basically, is who is better given Tiger's current numbers.

[x129]

Keegan has the same number of majors as Rory. But take both of them more as an example of a young guy that has one once and has another 40+ majors in him. Maybe he takes the next step and wins a bunch. Or maybe Schwartzel does or maybe Ricky breaks through. Or some guy I haven't thought of. Heck if Padraig Harrington wins 3  more majors in a 18 month span like he did before we might have to start thinking of him as an all time great.

As for the second point. We will have to wait until Tiger gets to 19. I am willing to take a bet that people will come out with various rationals (2nds, tougher competition, better character,...). It happens every time there is a guy that could be argued is the best ever. People don't like to let go of their childhood idols.

Originally Posted by k-troop

For starters, Keegan Bradley?  7 Majors?  I don't know if you meant that as a joke, but I'm laughing pretty hard.

And you keep saying that if Tiger gets to 19/20, people will still think Jack was better.  Who are these people?  I can't imagine anyone thinking that, with Tiger having more total wins, more Majors, three straight US Ams, etc.  The current discussion as I understand it, basically, is who is better given Tiger's current numbers.

[Zwick]

You can look at Tennis, a lot of people were saying that Pete Sampras is the GOAT till Federer would break his grand-slam record of 14 wins. As soon as Federer did that (he now has 16 wins) the same people claimed that Sampras was still the best because of tougher competition or because Federer has a losing record head to head to Nadal.

The fans will always find something to prove their favorite as the all time greatest.

Originally Posted by k-troop

And you keep saying that if Tiger gets to 19/20, people will still think Jack was better.  Who are these people?  I can't imagine anyone thinking that, with Tiger having more total wins, more Majors, three straight US Ams, etc.  The current discussion as I understand it, basically, is who is better given Tiger's current numbers.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by Zwick

You can look at Tennis, a lot of people were saying that Pete Sampras is the GOAT till Federer would break his grand-slam record of 14 wins. As soon as Federer did that (he now has 16 wins) the same people claimed that Sampras was still the best because of tougher competition or because Federer has a losing record head to head to Nadal.

The fans will always find something to prove their favorite as the all time greatest.

This is very well said, and I basically agree.  It is almost impossible to be objective in these matters, even with enough hard stats (in all sports) to sink a battleship.  "The devil can cite scriptures to suit his purpose" ......

This is a human weakness, having evolutionary value presumably, from the dawn of time when there were dinosaur bone-throwing contests and word (grunt?) spread that a particular hairy competitor was the GOAT ....

[brocks]

And you keep saying that if Tiger gets to 19/20, people will still think Jack was better.  Who are these people?  I can't imagine anyone thinking that, with Tiger having more total wins, more Majors, three straight US Ams, etc.  The current discussion as I understand it, basically, is who is better given Tiger's current numbers.

You would be amazed at how some people can throw logic out the window when it comes to defending their positions. It's almost like debating religion. My all-time favorite was a guy on the old GC board years ago, who seriously asserted that since Jack's competition was three times better than Tiger's, Tiger needed 55 majors to beat Jack's record. Also, you mention current numbers, which is not unreasonable at this stage of Tiger's career. But people were doing the same thing in 2001 --- comparing Tiger's career stats after five years, with Jack's 25+ years, as if it proved anything. What's more, they compared the accomplishments of his competition over those five years with the numbers piled up by Jack's competition over 25 years, to prove Jack had tougher fields to beat. And "numbers" itself is open to debate, because for many, if not most people, the only number they look at is majors, which IMO is ludicrous. It's completely unfair to the guys who played before Jack; anyone who knows anything about golf history should see that. Even for current golfers, major wins is certainly an important stat, and after 30 years of hype it's become the most important stat, but it's way too narrow to evaluate an entire career. A major win doesn't require sustained excellence; it just requires a hot week, or if you're lucky with the way the rest of the field plays, just a pretty good week. With three lucky bounces, or five fewer lipouts, Chris DiMarco would be a three-time major winner. Winning a major shows you can win under pressure against strong fields on tough courses, so I definitely think that a career without a major win is incomplete, but I also think that once a player has three or four majors, he has proven beyond a doubt that he has whatever it takes to win majors, and so you can check that off and go on to other stats. And when you do that, Tiger wins in a walk. He's just one behind Jack in PGA wins (and even if you think he now needs a good week just to win a regular event, I doubt anyone thinks he won't have two good weeks in the next ten years), and he is ahead in every other important stat that suggests dominance and sustained excellence --- winning percentage, consecutive wins, consecutive cuts, consecutive majors, margin of victory, money titles, scoring titles (even allowing the eight unofficial scoring titles that Jack awarded himself on his website, Tiger has nine official ones, and would have 11 by Jack's standards, including 1996 and 2008), most wins per year, and most Player of the Year awards (contrary to popular belief, and unlike the Vardon, Jack was eligible for POY his whole career). So the fact is, you pretty much have to say nothing matters but major wins in order to put Jack ahead of Tiger, even now. And right now, lots of people do exactly that. I really, really hope that Tiger gets to 19 majors, just so I can see how fast diehard Jack fans come up with some other standard, like wins and seconds combined, or maybe even most golf courses designed.

[camper6]

This would be an interesting thread if the ages of the golfers replying was mentioned.

I have a feeling the younger players would be going with Tiger and the older players with Jack.

The older players would have an edge because they have experienced both.

I think Tiger is a 'flash in the pan' compared to Jack.

My age.  79.

[newtogolf]

Good point camper, but I don't think it's just age.  There are always debates like this in sports and who's better is usually linked to who's liked more.  Jack had a great career and to my knowledge didn't have any of the issues off the course to create detractors as Tiger has.  Jack also had a good relationship with the media, which Tiger typically does not.

I heard a caller on the PGA Tour XM channel make a good point.  Arnie and Jack have gone on to be great ambassadors of golf, creating golf courses, hosting large tournaments and providing guest commentary from a historical perspective.  The caller feared that given Tigers personality and relationship with press when he's done playing he will disappear from golf and golf will lose touch with the best player of our generation.

Point being it's very hard to argue who's better without putting who's better liked into the equation even sub-consciously.

Originally Posted by camper6

This would be an interesting thread if the ages of the golfers replying was mentioned.

I have a feeling the younger players would be going with Tiger and the older players with Jack.

The older players would have an edge because they have experienced both.

I think Tiger is a 'flash in the pan' compared to Jack.

My age.  79.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Good point camper, but I don't think it's just age.  There are always debates like this in sports and who's better is usually linked to who's liked more.  Jack had a great career and to my knowledge didn't have any of the issues off the course to create detractors as Tiger has.  Jack also had a good relationship with the media, which Tiger typically does not.

I heard a caller on the PGA Tour XM channel make a good point.  Arnie and Jack have gone on to be great ambassadors of golf, creating golf courses, hosting large tournaments and providing guest commentary from a historical perspective.  The caller feared that given Tigers personality and relationship with press when he's done playing he will disappear from golf and golf will lose touch with the best player of our generation.

Point being it's very hard to argue who's better without putting who's better liked into the equation even sub-consciously.

Jack had issues and Arnie had issues, but they didn't have the 24/7 media and internet and tmz-ization of our culture to deal with.  Jack made some racial remarks that would subject any current player to universal condemnation and loss of sponsorships, today.  And Arnie was a known womanizer like Tiger, but it wasn't reported in those days.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v56/ai_18501026/

http://sportsbybrooks.com/pga-champion-suggested-arnold-palmer-infidelity-27441

And for the record, I saw almost all of Jack's career and was and am a big Jack fan.  But I am persuaded by the totality of his career and Tiger's career that Tiger is the greatest of all time, and the lack of one record doesn't change that.  One can make the argument that Jack has had the greatest career in the majors to date, but that's all.  And I don't think that is enough to determine who the greatest is of all time.  Before Jack held the major record no one thought Walter Hagen, the previous holder of the most majors, was the greatest of all time.  Anyone who decides who the GOAT is based on one simple metric has abdicated their own critical thinking abilities.  And yes, I am talking about the guys who say 18>14 so that determines it.  But of course that is easier than actually, you know, thinking.

[newtogolf]

I iwsh I had followed golf when Jack was dominating, I'm trying to find old Majors to watch some of his wins.  How much does real potential weigh into the GOAT discussion.  Would Hogan have led both Tiger and Jack in Majors had he not gone into the military and gotten injured in the car accident?  Would Tiger have already surpassed Jack had he played during Jacks time and not had chronic problems with his left leg and personal life?

I hear people discuss pitchers in baseball and how there likely won't ever be a 300 game winner again because of how the game has changed with pitch counts, five man rotations and improved bullpens.  If games won is the measuring stick it will mean no matter how good a pitcher is going forward, there's a good chance they won't be considered GOAT by many people and wonder how that carries over to golf.

Originally Posted by turtleback

And for the record, I saw almost all of Jack's career and was and am a big Jack fan.  But I am persuaded by the totality of his career and Tiger's career that Tiger is the greatest of all time, and the lack of one record doesn't change that.  One can make the argument that Jack has had the greatest career in the majors to date, but that's all.  And I don't think that is enough to determine who the greatest is of all time.  Before Jack held the major record no one thought Walter Hagen, the previous holder of the most majors, was the greatest of all time.  Anyone who decides who the GOAT is based on one simple metric has abdicated their own critical thinking abilities.  And yes, I am talking about the guys who say 18>14 so that determines it.  But of course that is easier than actually, you know, thinking.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I iwsh I had followed golf when Jack was dominating, I'm trying to find old Majors to watch some of his wins.  How much does real potential weigh into the GOAT discussion.  Would Hogan have led both Tiger and Jack in Majors had he not gone into the military and gotten injured in the car accident?  Would Tiger have already surpassed Jack had he played during Jacks time and not had chronic problems with his left leg and personal life?

I hear people discuss pitchers in baseball and how there likely won't ever be a 300 game winner again because of how the game has changed with pitch counts, five man rotations and improved bullpens.  If games won is the measuring stick it will mean no matter how good a pitcher is going forward, there's a good chance they won't be considered GOAT by many people and wonder how that carries over to golf.

Yes, Jack avoided any kind of injury that beset Hogan. He didn't have a scandal that beset Woods.

But remember - we are in the rarified air of GOAT - in order to be considered, you have to have that kind of 'clean' record.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not saying Jack is GOAT cuz he didn't screw around on Barb. I'm saying he avoided the pitfalls that held back Hogan & Woods. So I don't mean 'clean' in the context of morals, but in terms of avoidance of distractions.

I do reject, however, the attempt of devaluing what Jack did due to supposed inferior competition in his day. You can only beat who you play against. I will give Tiger this - in his time, he didn't beat his competition, he oftentimes destroyed them. Jack never won a US Open by 15 shots or a Masters by 9. Those that believe Tiger is the GOAT can rightfully point to those results as evidence of their claim. It's valid.

But in the end it still comes down to the numbers. Jack has 4 more major wins than Tiger. So to supplant Tiger ahead of Jack takes either an overvaluation of what Tiger did (which is defendable) or a devaluation of what Jack did (which is reprehensible). If you think it's Tiger, you should be able to make your point without discounting what Jack did.

And in the spirit of disclosure, I am 53 & grew up in Ohio. So yes, I saw Jack play & am a 'Jack Man'. I named my son after him (Nicholas - different spelling). But that doesn't mean I will discount what Tiger has done. I've said it many times before - if Tiger gets to 19, he's GOAT. Until then, he's the player with the most dominant streak of professional golf, 14 majors in 12 years. Which places him 2nd on the list of GOAT.

[camper6]

I think people relate to golfers who played in the same era as their favorite golfer.

Golfers who watched both Tiger and Jack can make comparisons.

Frankly I was not impressed with Tiger.

He comes out of his shoes to hit the ball and that might account for his injuries.

Jack on the other hand had a more controlled swing.

And when it comes to clutch putting.  Who do you think is the better putter?

I do admire Tiger for one thing.  Anyone who can stay out all night partying and still dominate the opposition has to be good.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Jack also had a good relationship with the media, which Tiger typically does not.

Personally, I cannot think of another sportsman who has enjoyed, up until his recent fall from grace, the degree of adulation and hype from the media that Tiger has.  It is almost impossible to overstate this point.  I have always found it highly irritating, from the early days in his time as a pro, and perhaps TW did as well - certainly he never tried to take advange or encourage this foolishness.  I understand the reasons, including the financial aspect.  Tiger's presence and success in the game of golf has made a bigger difference in profit margins and personal incomes of all involved than that of anyone else in the history of the game, let's not kid ourselves.  A minor aspect of the criticism of Tiger's critics here on the forum has been on these grounds, i.e. leave the goose who lays the golden eggs alone.

Well, those days are over now, something that I find enhances my enjoyment of the game.

I was following Jack's career on the telly from the mid 60's and the media were nothing like as smitten.  His top competitors were given much more respect and attention - coverage was better balanced imho.

[brocks]

I think people relate to golfers who played in the same era as their favorite golfer. Golfers who watched both Tiger and Jack can make comparisons. Frankly I was not impressed with Tiger.

You can rank Tiger behind Jack, especially if your idea of evaluating a career is looking at a single stat. You can even rank Hogan or Jones ahead of him, which an amazing number of people who have just finished arguing "majors are everything" somehow manage to do. But to say he wasn't impressive is saying you don't know much about golf. I just edited the last sentence. I first wrote that either you don't know much about golf, OR you're biased against him for some non-golf reason, but on second thought, no. Bias can't explain a statement like that. Not even Billy Payne, looking at his bad shot tantrums, or the Pope, looking at his infidelities, or the Grand Dragon of the KKK, looking at his skin color, could post in a thread about golf greatness and say Tiger wasn't impressive, unless he simply didn't know much about golf. I'm pushing 60 myself, and I started playing golf before Jack turned pro. He was my hands down favorite golfer for over 30 years, so I know a little bit about him. There was no Golf Channel or internet, but I had a subscription to Sports Illustrated, which was just as much in the bag for Jack as TGC ever was for Tiger, and I watched golf every weekend it was on, and even attended PGA events when I had the chance. Most golf tournaments were on TV for about two hours Saturday and two hours Sunday, so you only saw the guys in contention on the weekend, and usually only on the last few holes. If Jack was having an off week, you either didn't see him at all, or you just saw a couple highlights of his best shots that week. If Tiger is having an off week, you still see almost every shot he hits for at least three days, plus lowlights of his worst shots. That might explain your alleged objective comparisons. I rarely broke 80, but I hit a dozen or so perfect (i.e., lucky) shots per round. If I edited a highlight reel that compared Hogan's worst shots against my best, I'd come out pretty good, too. The simple fact is that no golfer in the modern game has been more impressive than Tiger was before hydrantgate. Five wins with one major would be the best year of their careers for all but a handful of golfers, but that was Tiger's AVERAGE for 14 years. Jack never won more than two majors in a row, or two majors in a year. He never even won more than two events in a row, except once. Tiger has separate win streaks of three (twice), five, six, and seven in a row. Nobody else has approached those numbers, except against the decimated fields during and shortly after WW II. Not impressed with that? Then you don't know much about golf.

[brocks]

I was following Jack's career on the telly from the mid 60's and the media were nothing like as smitten.  His top competitors were given much more respect and attention - coverage was better balanced imho.

Do you watch "Tiger Woods Golf" Sundays on NBC? Neither do I, because it doesn't exist. But there was a non-smitten NBC series starting in 1965 called "Big Three Golf," that just had Jack, Arnie, and Gary playing against each other. And the thing is, none of those three were even the best golfer of that time. The best golfer of the late 60's was Buffalo Billy Casper, who won 27 individual PGA events from 1964 to 1970, along with three Vardon Trophies, two money titles, and two Player of the Year awards (and he was easily the POY in 1968 as well, with six wins, the money title, and the Vardon, but the PGA of America didn't award a POY that year because it was mad at the tour players after they split off to form their own group). He also picked up his second US Open win and a Masters title during that period, but like 90% of American golfers before Jack, he never bothered to play the British Open, until late in his career. In his day, the Western Open was a bigger deal (for example, Casper was paid $11,000 for winning the Western in 1965, while Peter Thomson made just $4900 for winning the British), and he won three of those during that 7-year period. Yet another reason why "most majors" is not a good basis to compare careers. By comparison, Jack won 24 individual events, zero Vardons (and only one self-awarded scoring title), two money titles, and one POY. Arnie had 14 individual wins and one Vardon, Player had 6 wins. In other words, Casper had more wins than any of them, more wins than Palmer and Player combined, the same number of money titles as all three combined, more Vardons than all three combined, and more POYs than all three combined, even including Jack's self-awarded Vardons, and even not counting a POY that Casper deserved, but was cheated out of by PGA petty politics. And yet, he wasn't in the "Big Three." How's that for fair and balanced coverage? Tiger may have been hyped, but at least he was the best golfer in the world while they were hyping him. More official scoring titles than Jack's self-awarded scoring titles, more POY's, more money titles, higher win percentage, higher margin of victory, than anybody in the modern game. It ain't hype if you're that good.