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

[k-troop]

Obviously, he wouldn't have done it if he had known he was involved with PEDs. Correct. And after all of that investigation, depositions under oath, and doubtless offers of reduced sentences for implicating other people, not even TMZ or the Enquirer has accused Tiger of getting PEDs from Galea. So you are just believing what you want to believe, against all the evidence to the contrary.

Not obvious that Tiger would have shunned Galea if he'd know about the PED connection. That's an assumption you are making, which may be correct, but it's neither obvious nor proven by evidence cited in your post. Further, absence of evidence of guilt does not constitute evidence of innocence. There is circumstantial evidence linking Tiger to PEDs. It's thin and unsupported by direct evidence, and an argument can be made that given the level of scrutiny on Tiger, if such evidence existed it would have been exposed. But the fact that it hasn't been exposed is not evidence of innocence.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Not obvious that Tiger would have shunned Galea if he'd know about the PED connection. That's an assumption you are making, which may be correct, but it's neither obvious nor proven by evidence cited in your post.

Further, absence of evidence of guilt does not constitute evidence of innocence. There is circumstantial evidence linking Tiger to PEDs. It's thin and unsupported by direct evidence, and an argument can be made that given the level of scrutiny on Tiger, if such evidence existed it would have been exposed. But the fact that it hasn't been exposed is not evidence of innocence.

Agree on all points, but our legal system is based on the premise of "innocent until proven guilty".  Given the absence of any evidence of guilt there's no requirement for Tiger to provide evidence of innocence.

[k-troop]

Agree on all points, but our legal system is based on the premise of "innocent until proven guilty".  Given the absence of any evidence of guilt there's no requirement for Tiger to provide evidence of innocence.

And I agree with you. But there is no "evidence to the contrary" as proffered by Brocks.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by phan52

Sometimes it doesn't work and someone like Lee Trevino or Tom Watson will have a great Sunday and spoil your plans. But Jack still has the number and Tiger is the one doing the chasing. Hell, when was the last time Tiger even finished second in a Major?

In the five years leading up the fateful Thanksgiving day, he came in 2nd 5 times in 20 majors.  Of course the fact that in 2008 he missed 2 after winning the US Open cut down his opportunities to finish second.  Come to think of it, his 6 victories did too.  So he actually only had 12 opportunities to come in 2nd - and did so 5 times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9iron

Tiger claims to have been treated by Galea for something any hospital in Orlando or Palm Beach could have treated him for, so why would Tiger have this guy fly in from Toronto, Canada when there existed numerous facilities right in Orlando that could have done the same thing for him?

You're right.  I'm still trying to figure out why Adrian Peterson and RG3 didn't go to my orthopedic guy for their surgeries, too.

[mmoan2]

Originally Posted by MSchott

While it's impressive that Jack came second 19 times in majors I guarantee he himself doesn't care. It doesn't matter where you place unless it's first. Nicklaus himself has said that no one remembers who came in second. And that's true. Arnold won the Masters in 1964. Guess who came in second? Jack, but it means nothing. He lost.

If you try to assess GOAT, 2nd place finishes are a very important part of your overall body of work. An inherently ambiguous term such as "Greatest of all time" encompassesmuch more than just wins. Of course wins are by far the most important factor, but they aren'teverything. Do I think the 2007 Giants are a better team than the Patriots? Hell, no. The Patriots beat them 8 of 10 in my estimation, along with most football analysts. The 1990 Bills with 4 HOF players and maybe more later? The Giants played a pefect game and beat them. Were they a better team? No. And I'm a Giant fan from birth. Were the 1950s Yankees the best team basebll team ever? No, and I'm a Yankee fan. Was the 1980 US Olympic hockey team better than the Soviets? No. That's why it was called a "miracle."

And who cares if Jack or Tiger orLee Westwood or Phil Mickelson cares about 2nd place? No one listens less to sports fans talking about stuff like this more than athletes themselves, but that doesn't mean their second place finishes don't matter. If two golfers finish with identical win totals, but one has 30 2nd place finishes and one has 15, theguy with more seconds should get the nod. And again, I believe Tiger is the GOAT, and I don;t think Jack's 2nd place finishes make up for the difference, but it doesn't mean the 2nds are absolutely irrelevant. Feel free to ridicule now...

[iacas]

Originally Posted by phan52

But Jack also points out that the large amount of top 3's is a factor in the final number of wins because he understood that being patient will garner you more wins in the end. So far, he has been proved right. Hang around, don't be a hero, and the field come back to you. Just ask Doug Sanders.

You're still not getting it. This thread is not about whether Tiger will get to 19. It's about who the GOAT is. We're discussing second-place finishes as a factor (or non-factor to some) of varying weight in determining GOAT, not as a predictor for winning majors.

In other words:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Whatever.  The reason why you think that Tiger won't get to 18 - and thus will never be considered GOAT - is because he doesn't have patience.  Fine, so what?  It still makes not a hill of beans difference TOWARDS THE GOAT DISCUSSION how many seconds anybody has.  It only matters towards your point that you believe it's the reason Tiger won't win anymore, and thus will always be no. 2.

That.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Phil won a Major, finished 2nd in another and won 2 other tournaments.  Tiger won 5 non-majors yet people consider him POTY.  I agree the math isn't that simple but the weight of Majors doesn't seem to factor in as greatly in determining POTY as it does in GOAT.

I'd vote for Phil for POTY currently. Tiger would probably have to win a tournament or two (one + FedExCup, or two of the playoff events) and have Phil do nothing the rest of the year for me to consider Tiger, and then I'd be weighing 6 or 7 + FEC Champ versus 3 wins including 1 major. I'd probably still lean towards Phil.

Originally Posted by mmoan2

If you try to assess GOAT, 2nd place finishes are a very important part of your overall body of work.

They do not have to be, no. In your opinion they are a "very important part" but I do not agree. I think they're a very, very small part.

I asked five former or current PGA Tour players which they'd choose if "their legacy as a golfer" was the sole consideration*:

A) 19 second place finishes in majors but no other finishes higher than second in any events.

B) A PGA Tour win in a regular field event (no opposite field or Fall Series stuff).

If they answered A, I asked how many PGA Tour wins it would take for them to choose B.

One person said A. The other four chose B. One said "For the rest of my life I would be known as a PGA Tour winner. Nobody remembers who finished second." The one who chose A said "three" when asked how many regular PGA Tour wins he'd take over nineteen second place finishes in majors. And when I asked he said he chose A because "19 is the record, right? I could say I tied Jack in at least something." My hunch was that, absent Jack's record of 19, he might have chosen B.

* Sole consideration because second place in 19 majors is probably close to $19M, so financially I think almost every player should choose that if they cared about their families at all. :)

Now, do I value second place finishes as "very important?" No. I do not. I think they're meaningful, but they're somewhere between a tiebreaker (that Tiger won't need as he's already got more PGA Tour victories) and something like "money list winner for the year" (Tiger finished second on the money list in 2008 to a guy who played 17 more tournaments than he played).

If Tiger had career stats that exactly equalled Jack, the second place finishes would be a good tiebreaker. But Tiger's already got more PGA Tour wins, which I personally weigh quite a bit more heavily, and he'll need at least four more (in majors) to need a tiebreaker anyway, pushing his PGA Tour wins total well beyond the need to use "major second place finishes" as any sort of tiebreaker IMO.

Originally Posted by mmoan2

An inherently ambiguous term such as "Greatest of all time" encompassesmuch more than just wins.

Like the many other things that favor Tiger - margin of victory. Winning percentage. Holding all four major championship titles at one time. PGA Tour wins. POTY. Money list winner. Etc.

Originally Posted by mmoan2

And who cares if Jack or Tiger orLee Westwood or Phil Mickelson cares about 2nd place?

For starters: Jack, Tiger, Lee, and Phil. And when great players speak, it informs the opinions of those who aren't in their place because they speak from a level of experience that carries weight of its own.

Originally Posted by mmoan2

If two golfers finish with identical win totals, but one has 30 2nd place finishes and one has 15, theguy with more seconds should get the nod.

That won't happen. As I said, and others have said, Tiger leads in almost every other category, including PGA Tour victories, which even you will give weight to, I'd assume. So they can't tie, even if you limit "greatest ever" to "major wins, major second place finishes, and PGA Tour victories."

---

I think Jack's GOAT right now, but it's close, and a major or two by Tiger may close the gap or even put him ahead in my opinion. PGA Tour victories and the other things I've mentioned might put him over the top at 15 or 16 majors. Especially given the much stiffer competition he's faced.

P.S. I asked the five pros one other question: if Tiger and Jack played 100 tournaments (72 holes) spread out over the equivalent ages throughout their career from 21 to 37, how many would Tiger win, how many would Jack win, with no ties? The average answer? Tiger would win 68. The lowest: Tiger would win 60. One said Tiger would win 82. Just FWIW, which may not be much.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'd vote for Phil for POTY currently. Tiger would probably have to win a tournament or two (one + FedExCup, or two of the playoff events) and have Phil do nothing the rest of the year for me to consider Tiger, and then I'd be weighing 6 or 7 + FEC Champ versus 3 wins including 1 major. I'd probably still lean towards Phil.

I'm in agreement that at this point Phil should be POTY but we are in the minority based on what I've heard on television and PGA Tour radio.   I brought POTY into this because the arguments the talking heads made is 5 wins is greater than 3 even if 1 is a Major.  They seem to devalue his win in Scotland and didn't even mention his 2nd place at the US Open.

If you look at the criteria for the World Golf Hall of Fame: (10 TOUR wins or 2 Majors or PLAYERS Championship wins).  The math is more obvious here, as it seems they consider 1 Major = 5 TOUR wins.  Not directed at you, but why does the math not apply in determining GOAT?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The argument which that brings up is that then you have factor in the fact that Jack simply didn't have as many opportunities with a field of that magnitude, because the WGC events didn't exist then.  If a player makes a point of entering the biggest events each year, he has no control over how many other top 100 players also choose to play.

But that is exactly the point.  Jack was a big part of how majors got to be the metric for GOAT at a time when the players before him did not have the opportunity to play 4 majors every single year, as he did.  Jack didn't have the opportunity to play tournaments with the strength of fieldthat Tiger does, but Vardon, Hagen, Sarazen, Hogan, Nelson, and Snead didn't have nearly the number of opportunities to play majors as Jack did.  Yet no one is saying the using majors as a metric is unfair - even though it is patently unfair to all of the generations of golfer before about 1970.  I think if you look at the top players since then you will find that almost all of them play 4 majors every year.  If you look at the top golfers before then you will find it hard to find very many years where ANY of them played 4 majors in a year.

So you cannot "factor in the fact that Jack simply didn't have as many opportunities with a field of that magnitude, because the WGC events didn't exist then"  without also factoring in the fact that Jack had a huge advantage over the guys who came before him because they "simply didn't have as many opportunities with a field [# of majors]of that magnitude, because the WGC events didn't exist then [because they didn't exist or the logistics of travel made them prohibitive to attend regularly].

I don't give a rat's ass about the guys who came before.  This thread is about Jack and Tiger.  They both had the same opportunities to play the same majors.  The rest is irrelevant.

[Mulligan Jeff]

At the time of the Roman Empire gladiators would fight to the death or concede defeat. A second-place finish was a bitter end heck, some second-place finishers didn't live to see the next day. Second-place finishes were not a factor when it came to GOAT gladiator. I say the same should hold true in professional golf for GOAT. Second-place finishes should not be a factor in GOAT? And as a civilized human being I say we spare the second-place finisher.

[k-troop]

At the time of the Roman Empire gladiators would fight to the death or concede defeat. A second-place finish was a bitter end heck, some second-place finishers didn't live to see the next day. Second-place finishes were not a factor when it came to GOAT gladiator. I say the same should hold true in professional golf for GOAT. Second-place finishes should not be a factor in GOAT? And as a civilized human being I say we spare the second-place finisher.

This is definitely the most appropriate other-sports analogy presented thus far.

[mmoan2]

I'm leaning the other way. Right now, I think it's Jack by a whisker, but if Jack never wins another major, I'd have to go with Tiger.

Ha ha.

[mmoan2]

I just played TW 14 as myself vs. Jack and Tiger and kicked both their butts so I'm the GOAT. Even though jack came in 2nd. Anyway, I didn't mean to overemphasize the importance of 2nd place finishes."very important" was a poor choice of words. I agree that there are like 15 more important things. And I think Tiger is clearly the better in most categories. I just wanted to make the point that its not 100 percent irrelevant. And while most people think my theory is nuts, it would be a major disappointment if TW was stuck on 14 majors forever, even if he wins 150 tournaments. In retrospect, it makes little sense to then claim that Jack was better, but what an anticlimax that would be for the GOAT to never win a major again after winning 14 in around a decade. It would be like Michael Jordan having won 6 championships by age 26 and then going dry until retiring at 40. My guess us that TW wins the Open next year and it's all moot anyway.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I don't give a rat's ass about the guys who came before.  This thread is about Jack and Tiger.  They both had the same opportunities to play the same majors.  The rest is irrelevant.

Not really.  I am challenging the premise of the thread title  It says "Who's the greatest", not "Which is greater".   Who says the greatest has to be Jack or Tiger?  A metric which automatically eliminates every other great golfer in history regardless of merit?  And 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)   But you questioned that.  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.

Through 1980 (it is more if we cut it off at 1986 or later, but I am trying to be fair and cut it off at the point where Jack was still arguably in the top 3-5 players) Jack played in all four majors in 19 years.  (There were 17 other years after 1980 when Jack played all 4 in a year, but I am discounting them as legacy years, even though he was able to win one major in that period)

Gene Sarazen played in all four majors in a year 2 times.

Walter Hagen NEVER played in all four majors in a year.

Harry Vardon never played in all four majors in a year.  And only played in 2 majors in a year 3 times.

Sam Snead played in all four majors in a year 4 times.

Ben Hogan never played in all four majors in one year.

Byron Nelson played in all four majors in a year one time.

So Jack played in all four majors 19 times, before entering what I am calling legacy status, and these other greats of the game COMBINED played in all four majors in a year 5 times.  So of COURSE number of majors win is the fair way to compare Jack to these great players in earlier eras.  At least that is what Jack decided.  And for some reason the rest of the golf world went along.

Now, given the huge disparity in Jack's opportunities in the majors compared to every other golfer from the earlier eras can anyone explain to me how Jack's statement that: " The only fair, adequate way to compare a player of one era against a player of another is his record in the major championships." is not an incredibly unfair and self-serving claim?  I mean, c'mon.  The only fair way to compare is a way that gives me a 3x to 6x advantage in the number of opportunities anyone else had?  And if that is fair than using WGCs is a fair way to now determine GOAT.

Now if he said majors are the only fair way to compare players within an era I'd have no problem with that.  Sure he was better than Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, and Watson, and the majors prove it, since they had essentially the same opportunity to play majors that he did.  But he talked specifically about players of different eras, KNOWING that they had far fewer opportunities than he had, and was likely to have by the time he was done.  Is it is remotely fair to compare players of different eras based on tournaments that players of that earlier era had many fewer opportunities to play?  That is a definition of fairness with which I am unfamiliar.

I think a hell of a case can be made that Hogan was a greater player than Jack.  Hogan came closer to realizing one of Jack's most cherished goals, the one-year slam, than Jack ever did.  The best major record Jack ever had in one year was 2-2.  Hogan went 3-0 one year.  Jack never won more than 7 events in a year - Hogan bested that twice (10 and 13) by 3 or more wins.  Hogan won 3 Vardon trophies, Jack won 0.

But maybe when Jack said record in majors he meant overall performance, not just number of wins. Maybe a fairer way of making that comparison, using record in the majors, is to look at winning percentage , not just total number of wins, which I think I have shown would be patently UNfair..

So let's look at that.  In the 1930s Hogan played in 7 majors.  In the 1940s he played in 17 majors.  In the 1950s he played in 20 majors.  I think 1959, which is the age at which he won his last PGA tour event, and turned age 48, is a fair place to cut things off for him.  So he played in a total of 44 majors in that period and won 9 of them.  That is a 20.5% winning rate.  I could make an argument we should cut him off at the end of 1953, when he won his final major and that would cut 25 majors off and raise his winning percentage to 27.3%, but I'll stick with 1959.

Starting in 1962 when he turned pro, Jack played in 31 majors in the 1960s (I didn't count the 1962 Masters as he was still an amateur).  In the 1970s he played in 40 majors. Up to the '86 Masters he had played another 25 majors.  That gives him a total of 96 majors played in that period for the 18 wins.  That is a winning percentage of 18.8%.  If we were to count EVERY major Hogan played in there was a total of 58, including majors he played when he was well over age 50.  Even counting ALL of his majors played, his winning percentage only drops to 19.0% still a hair above Jack.  But of course if we count ALL of Jack's post-86 Masters majors his winning percentage plunges.

So hey, by Jack's own metric of RECORD in the majors Hogan has him beat!!  IF we interpret record in a way that is at least remotely fair and evenhanded.  Now someone tell me why Hogan is not the current GOAT other than the bare 18>9.  But beware, any other argument you might try to use for Jack against Hogan I get to use for Tiger against Jack.  And no one can use the favorite anti-Tiger argument against Hogan.  I'm pretty sure Hogan never said that his goal was to exceed Jack nor that most majors defines the GOAT.

But we are not even ALLOWED to have this discussion in a serious way, although the arguments are pretty strong for Hogan, because of Jack's self-serving statement and the way it has been widely accepted.

And now we have another era where there are many more events (majors, WGCs Players) where the cream of the cream play.  But people would howl with outrage if Tiger were to say that the only fair way to compare golfers of different era is the number of wins in events in which at least 80% of the best golfers in the world play, and thereby, on the basis of his 14 majors, 18 WGCs and 2 Players, claim the title of GOAT for himself.  But that is EXACTLY what Jack did, and everyone just nods their head and goes along.

But that is all irrelevant, I guess.

PS:  If we look at the the major winning percentage for Tiger, he has played 64 majors as a pro and won 14, which is a 21.9%, so he has BOTH Jack and Ben beat.  But if he doesn't start winning some more majors soon, his percentage will fall below Ben's and Ben will be firmly ensconced as the GOAT . . . . . IF we choose to interpret Jack's metric in a fair way and not a self-serving way.

Unless, of course, we decide to look at Vardon.  In which case HIS 25% winning percentage wipes them both out.  LOL

[Antinomy]

It seems to me that people need to define their terms.  In my mind, the greatest player of all time can't be determined in this world.  In heaven, the angels inclined to bet on such things could take all of the players in question, give them perfect health, give them their choice of equipment of varying styles, time to practice, and then have them play against each other for a billion tournaments on a million different courses.  The player who accumulated the most wins, assuming the difference was statistically significant, would be the greatest player of all time.

Unless there is an afterlife, this will always be a thought experiment.  We can use data to improve on it, but we can never know for sure.

[Mulligan Jeff]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Not really.  I am challenging the premise of the thread title  It says "Who's the greatest", not "Which is greater".   Who says the greatest has to be Jack or Tiger?  A metric which automatically eliminates every other great golfer in history regardless of merit?  And 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)   But you questioned that.  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.

Through 1980 (it is more if we cut it off at 1986 or later, but I am trying to be fair and cut it off at the point where Jack was still arguably in the top 3-5 players) Jack played in all four majors in 19 years.  (There were 17 other years after 1980 when Jack played all 4 in a year, but I am discounting them as legacy years, even though he was able to win one major in that period)

Gene Sarazen played in all four majors in a year 2 times.

Walter Hagen NEVER played in all four majors in a year.

Harry Vardon never played in all four majors in a year.  And only played in 2 majors in a year 3 times.

Sam Snead played in all four majors in a year 4 times.

Ben Hogan never played in all four majors in one year.

Byron Nelson played in all four majors in a year one time.

So Jack played in all four majors 19 times, before entering what I am calling legacy status, and these other greats of the game COMBINED played in all four majors in a year 5 times.  So of COURSE number of majors win is the fair way to compare Jack to these great players in earlier eras.  At least that is what Jack decided.  And for some reason the rest of the golf world went along.

Now, given the huge disparity in Jack's opportunities in the majors compared to every other golfer from the earlier eras can anyone explain to me how Jack's statement that: "The only fair, adequate way to compare a player of one era against a player of another is his record in the major championships." is not an incredibly unfair and self-serving claim?  I mean, c'mon.  The only fair way to compare is a way that gives me a 3x to 6x advantage in the number of opportunities anyone else had?  And if that is fair than using WGCs is a fair way to now determine GOAT.

Now if he said majors are the only fair way to compare players within an era I'd have no problem with that.  Sure he was better than Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, and Watson, and the majors prove it, since they had essentially the same opportunity to play majors that he did.  But he talked specifically about players of different eras, KNOWING that they had far fewer opportunities than he had, and was likely to have by the time he was done.  Is it is remotely fair to compare players of different eras based on tournaments that players of that earlier era had many fewer opportunities to play?  That is a definition of fairness with which I am unfamiliar.

I think a hell of a case can be made that Hogan was a greater player than Jack.  Hogan came closer to realizing one of Jack's most cherished goals, the one-year slam, than Jack ever did.  The best major record Jack ever had in one year was 2-2.  Hogan went 3-0 one year.  Jack never won more than 7 events in a year - Hogan bested that twice (10 and 13) by 3 or more wins.  Hogan won 3 Vardon trophies, Jack won 0.

But maybe when Jack said record in majors he meant overall performance, not just number of wins. Maybe a fairer way of making that comparison, using record in the majors, is to look at winning percentage, not just total number of wins, which I think I have shown would be patently UNfair..

So let's look at that.  In the 1930s Hogan played in 7 majors.  In the 1940s he played in 17 majors.  In the 1950s he played in 20 majors.  I think 1959, which is the age at which he won his last PGA tour event, and turned age 48, is a fair place to cut things off for him.  So he played in a total of 44 majors in that period and won 9 of them.  That is a 20.5% winning rate.  I could make an argument we should cut him off at the end of 1953, when he won his final major and that would cut 25 majors off and raise his winning percentage to 27.3%, but I'll stick with 1959.

Starting in 1962 when he turned pro, Jack played in 31 majors in the 1960s (I didn't count the 1962 Masters as he was still an amateur).  In the 1970s he played in 40 majors. Up to the '86 Masters he had played another 25 majors.  That gives him a total of 96 majors played in that period for the 18 wins.  That is a winning percentage of 18.8%.  If we were to count EVERY major Hogan played in there was a total of 58, including majors he played when he was well over age 50.  Even counting ALL of his majors played, his winning percentage only drops to 19.0% still a hair above Jack.  But of course if we count ALL of Jack's post-86 Masters majors his winning percentage plunges.

So hey, by Jack's own metric of RECORD in the majors Hogan has him beat!!  IF we interpret record in a way that is at least remotely fair and evenhanded.  Now someone tell me why Hogan is not the current GOAT other than the bare 18>9.  But beware, any other argument you might try to use for Jack against Hogan I get to use for Tiger against Jack.  And no one can use the favorite anti-Tiger argument against Hogan.  I'm pretty sure Hogan never said that his goal was to exceed Jack nor that most majors defines the GOAT.

But we are not even ALLOWED to have this discussion in a serious way, although the arguments are pretty strong for Hogan, because of Jack's self-serving statement and the way it has been widely accepted.

And now we have another era where there are many more events (majors, WGCs Players) where the cream of the cream play.  But people would howl with outrage if Tiger were to say that the only fair way to compare golfers of different era is the number of wins in events in which at least 80% of the best golfers in the world play, and thereby, on the basis of his 14 majors, 18 WGCs and 2 Players, claim the title of GOAT for himself.  But that is EXACTLY what Jack did, and everyone just nods their head and goes along.

But that is all irrelevant, I guess.

PS:  If we look at the the major winning percentage for Tiger, he has played 64 majors as a pro and won 14, which is a 21.9%, so he has BOTH Jack and Ben beat.  But if he doesn't start winning some more majors soon, his percentage will fall below Ben's and Ben will be firmly ensconced as the GOAT . . . . . IF we choose to interpret Jack's metric in a fair way and not a self-serving way.

Unless, of course, we decide to look at Vardon.  In which case HIS 25% winning percentage wipes them both out.  LOL

You make a good case Turtleback in that Jack played in far more majors than his predecessors but he believes the total number of major titles won would constitute GOAT. But that would make Jack out to be pompous lol So winning percentage means a great deal when it comes to major titles won. It's hard to believe that the media has never questioned Jack's statement, they are the body that would certainly scrutinize it.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I don't give a rat's ass about the guys who came before.  This thread is about Jack and Tiger.  They both had the same opportunities to play the same majors.  The rest is irrelevant.

Not really.  I am challenging the premise of the thread title  It says "Who's the greatest", not "Which is greater".   Who says the greatest has to be Jack or Tiger?

The title says JACK OR TIGER:  Who's the greatest?  It doesn't even ask who is the greatest of all time, just who's better between them.  So you are wrong in trying to write your essays to include every noted player to ever play the game.

If you want to actually start that debate, then start your own thread and I'll stay out of it, since I'm really tired arguing with a you over what I view as irrelevancies.  You can rationalize until you are blue in the face, and there will still be more who disagree with you than there are who agree, and nobody will ever be able to draw any absolute conclusions because the data used for comparison is flawed from the outset.

[iacas]

The title says JACK OR TIGER:  Who's the greatest?  It doesn't even ask who is the greatest of all time, just who's better between them.

I agree with that. The title limits it to Jack or Tiger. Sorry turtleback.

[k-troop]

R[quote name="iacas" url="/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/3390#post_887396"] I agree with that. The title limits it to Jack or Tiger. Sorry turtleback.[/quote] Reality limits it to Jack or Tiger. There are points to be made for others (Snead's win total; Hogan's return from injury and total dominance of Majors for a short period) but only points--not entire arguments. The cases for Tiger and Jack fill volumes (or at least about 3500 posts).