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

[Golfingdad]

I think that's where people get it wrong, and where the stats can be misleading: Tiger likely can come from behind in majors, he just hasn't had to yet ...

It's OT, but this reminds me of a bit of a pet peeve I have towards baseball announcers and their penchant for reciting teams' records in one-run games.  I believe that stat to be equally misleading.

[Machmood]

Tiger can come from behind if he had to. No offense but this is the dumbest statement ever. To say he never had to come from behind would mean he won them all. Every time he doesn't win he is behind. Tnat being said if you look at it realistically I'm sure tnere are 10+ occasions ,prob closer to 20 where going into Sunday in a major tiger was within 6 shots and didn't win, or ended up finishing top 10. Tnese would be scenarios where he had a chance to win from behind and didn't

[Mulligan Jeff]

I agree with an earlier post that reads percentage of tournaments won vs. tournaments entered. Advantage Tiger.

[Ernest Jones]

Tiger can come from behind if he had to. No offense but this is the dumbest statement ever. To say he never had to come from behind would mean he won them all. Every time he doesn't win he is behind. Tnat being said if you look at it realistically I'm sure tnere are 10+ occasions ,prob closer to 20 where going into Sunday in a major tiger was within 6 shots and didn't win, or ended up finishing top 10. Tnese would be scenarios where he had a chance to win from behind and didn't

I'm not sure I grasp your point here. Are you saying that, "Tiger can come from behind if he had to" is a dumb statement? My apologizes, I read it twice and I'm still unclear on what you mean.

[iacas]

I'm not sure I grasp your point here. Are you saying that, "Tiger can come from behind if he had to" is a dumb statement? My apologizes, I read it twice and I'm still unclear on what you mean.

It's okay. He's saying the statement (which is not what I said) is dumb.

I said, to paraphrase myself, that Tiger hasn't had to come from behind (yet has still won 14 majors) because he's had the lead so darn often. You don't have to "come from behind" if you're in front on Saturday.

It's a pretty gross misinterpretation (or just plain playing dumb) regarding my comment. If Tiger wins 20 majors but never comes from behind to win any of them, people like Machmood may knock him by pointing out that he never came from behind, because apparently it's now a bad thing or a sign of weakness or whatever to have the lead on Saturday and hold on to win it 20 (or 14) times?

[Machmood]

Hey sorry If my post was a bit harsh but my point is tiger has had many opportunities going into sunday to win a major and hasn't. To say he hasnt had to in order to win 14 is true, but tne fact is he's had many opportunities and couldn't come through . It's not a huge point but with so many opportunitys is it a coincidence or is it something deeper. I've already said I'm taking tiger heads up, I just think jack has had a better overall career. Maybe tnats just due to circumstances and him being so romanticized but its just what I think

[Jakester23]

What does Jack's number of 2nds say about his ability to come back or hold a lead for that matter.

[turtleback]

And I think the scenario I listed is great because it presents lots of the marginal arguments about each player:  most people would pick Tiger in any head-to-head scenario, Jack has more majors, Tiger can't come from behind in majors, and it incorporates the level of competition from the two eras.

LOL.  That is like saying that in your scenario, if Tiger and Jack were each coming in having won the 2 previous majors they entered then Tiger would win because Jack can't win 3 major in a row and Tiger can.

I think that's where people get it wrong, and where the stats can be misleading: Tiger likely can come from behind in majors, he just hasn't had to yet (and he's still gotten to 14). Jack had to more often. Also, Tiger might have started the day with the lead in all of his majors, but he's been behind in a few of them at various points in time.

In other words, I don't see the point in one-round "matchups." Rich Beem won a major in a one-round matchup after all. So who would win with those players? Billy Casper. That's my answer. :-)

P.S. Tiger won a U.S. Open played over 91 holes with a broken leg. He's returned to win, what, 10 times or whatever since his fire hydrant thing and people saying he'd never win again. I think he can overcome adversity just fine.

Tiger can come from behind if he had to. No offense but this is the dumbest statement ever. To say he never had to come from behind would mean he won them all. Every time he doesn't win he is behind. Tnat being said if you look at it realistically I'm sure tnere are 10+ occasions ,prob closer to 20 where going into Sunday in a major tiger was within 6 shots and didn't win, or ended up finishing top 10. Tnese would be scenarios where he had a chance to win from behind and didn't

This all makes me want to go research how many times Jack had a share of the 54 hole lead in a major and didn't win.  We know that it is 1 out of 15 for Tiger.  Somehow, without having researched it, I doubt Jack's record in holding a 54 lead in majors is anywhere near as good.  I base this on the fact that we have never heard this statistic mentioned by Jack, the media, nor the other Jack supporters.

So which is more important, closing out a 54 hole lead or coming back from a deficit?  I pretty sure that both guys would prefer to have the 54 hole lead.

And just how many of Jack's major wins were come from behind in the first place?

Hmmmmm.

[mvmac]

It's okay. He's saying the statement (which is not what I said) is dumb.

I said, to paraphrase myself, that Tiger hasn't had to come from behind (yet has still won 14 majors) because he's had the lead so darn often. You don't have to "come from behind" if you're in front on Saturday.

It's a pretty gross misinterpretation (or just plain playing dumb) regarding my comment. If Tiger wins 20 majors but never comes from behind to win any of them, people like Machmood may knock him by pointing out that he never came from behind, because apparently it's now a bad thing or a sign of weakness or whatever to have the lead on Saturday and hold on to win it 20 (or 14) times?

During the final round Tiger has lost the solo lead three times in majors and resulted in three playoffs that he won, '00 PGA, '05 Masters and '08 US Open.  Like you said Erik, he doesn't have any come from behind wins because he plays much better than the field and gives himself 3, 5, 10 shot leads.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Really?  Watson wins on his putter?  Have you been watching him the last 20 years?  Putting is easily the worst part of his game.

We're not talking NOW, we are speculating when these guys were in their prime. And, in his prime, there was no one better than Watson at fearless putting.

Except maybe Jack.  I don't know where you get the idea the Watson was any better than Jack, who was renowned as a great putter.  Jack's short game was his only weak point, and it wasn't like it was all that bad.  He was just so good off the tee and with his irons, that he simply didn't need to be a great chipper as badly as most other players.

And nobody specified the time period in the proposed scenario.  I'll still take Jack when working from a small deficit on Sunday.

[Strandly]

Different eras, can't compare.

[Machmood]

That pretty much sums it up

[turtleback]

Different eras, can't compare.

Yet it is amazing that before Tiger came along no one had any problem comparing players of different eras and concluding that Jack was the GOAT.

[Wally]

Jack. He's got more majors and that's really what anyone looks at.

[mvmac]

Yet it is amazing that before Tiger came along no one had any problem comparing players of different eras and concluding that Jack was the GOAT.

Well yeah cause the dude won 18 professional majors.  Wouldn't be talk about a modern player being GOAT because no one(other than Tiger) has gotten to double digit career majors.  Watson has 8, Faldo 6, Seve 5, Mickelson 5, Els 4.

[turtleback]

Well yeah cause the dude won 18 professional majors.  Wouldn't be talk about a modern player being GOAT because no one(other than Tiger) has gotten to double digit career majors.  Watson has 8, Faldo 6, Seve 5, Mickelson 5, Els 4.

Wow, and yet Erik keeps telling me that people do not decide based on number of majors.

And I thought players of different eras cannot be compared?

[iacas]

Wow, and yet Erik keeps telling me that people do not decide based on number of majors.

And I thought players of different eras cannot be compared?

A) I haven't said much about comparing players of different eras.

B) I have said that the numbers 18 and 14 matter but they are not the sole factors by which most people determine GOAT for themselves.

B remains true, and Mike was simply pointing out that to be in the conversation - whether you choose Jack or Tiger (and anyone supporting Tiger as possibly being GOAT is clearly not using 18 > 14 as the sole determinant) in the end - the list of modern players in the conversation is pretty short.

As you know, I've never said that the numbers 18 and 14 don't matter or that they're not A factor for people - just that they're not the sole factor for a lot of people (the majority, etc. - any way I've described this group has been synonymous in my mind).

[mvmac]

Wow, and yet Erik keeps telling me that people do not decide based on number of majors.

And I thought players of different eras cannot be compared?

You said that before Tiger, there was a consensus that Jack was GOAT, just giving you my take on that.  I'm sure that there were people before Tiger that woud have argued for Hogan or Jones as GOAT