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

[iacas]

Look, iacas, ill agree there are other possible metrics. But majors is the most commonly cited metric. It's what the folks on TV who are paid to talk about golf 60 hours per week talk about more than any other measure. It's what most casual golf fans know. It's what Tiger admits that he measures his legacy against.

Majors may not be the only measure of greatness, but they're hugely important.

That's not the same thing as saying they're THE metric, which is my point. I thought that was pretty clear.

Anyone who thinks Tiger is the GOAT can't possibly be using total # of majors as THE metric, and last time I checked, Tiger leads this poll by a wide margin.

[bplewis24]

Those players you listed? They'd have been top 30 in the world in any of the years Jack was winning majors. Who was ranked 95th in 1966? Clue: a club pro somewhere. Jack himself has pointed out that a third of the field back in his days was comprised of club pros.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

But it also reduces the incentive to play any better than is required to get a decent payday.  When you can keep your card and make a more than comfortable living while hanging at number 100 on the money list, there is no survival incentive.

1) It CAN reduce the incentive to perform better.  It does NOT NECESSARILY reduce the incentive to perform better.  And it would be very, very disingenuous to suggest that players don't care about winning.  Fame is just as important to many of these guys as much as fortune is.  Simply watching a tournament on TV, and witnessing the emotional ebb and flow of the last few holes of big tournaments lets you see exactly how much people care about finishing first, as opposed to finishing fourth.  Or tenth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

During most of Jack's career, #100 didn't keep his card and didn't make enough to go out for a dollar meal at Mickey D's.  There was a deeper need to win.

2) (and the more important point here) That may be true.  And the #100 guy MIGHT have more survival incentive than the #100 guy today (this is still debatable, because the #100 guy today may have a family, a nutritionist, a sports psychologist, a swing coach, an agent, all to provide for or pay for, as well as more traveling expenses).  HOWEVER, survival incentive has zero (!) bearing on depth of field and competition level.  It only would serve to highlight the possibility that the #100 guy MIGHT be trying harder on day 3 when he's not really in contention, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the 100 guy of yesteryear is more capable of winning than the 100 guy of today.  And, as I said before, the money actually incentivizes the #100 guy of today to be better, because it's more lucrative than retiring to be a club pro somewhere.

After all, we're attempting to theorize about level of competition.  What matters is the ability to contend and win.

Lastly, the fact that professional golfers have wild peaks and valleys is not proof that money has corrupted their desire to compete or made it too difficult on them.  And even if it did, it wouldn't matter.  Because when the field is deeper, it's less dependent on a particular golfer to challenge the best.  When #50 slides to #101, all that matters is what the level of drop off is between numbers 51-100.  If it's negligible, the #1 golfer can't exactly rest on his laurels.

[mvmac]

Look, iacas, ill agree there are other possible metrics. But majors is the most commonly cited metric. It's what the folks on TV who are paid to talk about golf 60 hours per week talk about more than any other measure. It's what most casual golf fans know. It's what Tiger admits that he measures his legacy against.

Majors may not be the only measure of greatness, but they're hugely important.

I think Erik was just trying to say that Majors aren't the ONLY metric, which is what metrybill was making it sound like.  Majors are an important metric.  And just because they are on TV doesn't make them "experts" in anything other than being able to fill air time

EDIT: Saw Erik already responded

[Jakester23]

I see the greatest of all time debate being almost like the BSC(which I hate but is necessary). The reason I compare it to the BCS is simply like in college football not everyone can play each other. Just like Tiger and Jack can't play each other. That all being said I feel like you have to look at all things comparable between the two players not just one metric.  Id say major wins is probably 25% of what counts for the best of all time maybe even 33%. But if you look at the whole picture (players of the year, money titles, Vardon, tour wins, euro tour wins, ect) its pretty clear that Tiger has an advantage in 66-75% of the debate. Not even mentioning that Jacks stats are set in stone where as Tiger can add to the advantages he already has.  Its almost a joke that Jacks 2nd place finishes is a big argument for him. Don't you think he would trade all of those 2nd places for 1 more POY or a Vardon? I see Tigers 18 WGC wins holding much more weight than 19 2nds.

[mmoan2]

I love facts and stats. Thanks.  However, the question remains: If relevancy in the Majors is the gold standard, how does Tiger's Majors record of 24 - 1st, 2nd and 3rd finishes stack up against Jack's 37 - 1st and 2nd's alone?

It is debatable that it is the "gold standard," but even if it is the most important thing, Tiger has actually won a greater percentage of majors he has been in and he dominates so may other categories that it sways the argument to his favor, IMO. Troy Aikman won 3 Super Bowls to Peyton Manning's one - does that make him a better QB? No.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by stephenf

1. "Far fewer people played golf at a high level in the 1960s and 1970s." Even assuming that's true, so what?

Originally Posted by iacas

So what? If the simple logic of that statement doesn't make sense to you, you're not what I would call a worthy foe. Is the best player of a pool of ten likely to be the best player from a pool of 10,000? Which city is likely to produce the best basketball player? Los Angeles or Lost Springs, Wyoming?

Is that your opinion or is that a fact?. Because I have been cautioned here about stating opinion as fact.

Michael Jordan honed his skills in Wilmington, NC. Larry Bird was from French Lick, Indiana, for Christ's sake, a place that is lot more like Lost Springs, Wyoming than Los Angeles.

Jack Nicklaus was a suburban kid from Columbus, Ohio and he wasn't just the best golffer in the are, he was the best overall athlete.

Good golfers (or basketball players, for that matter) can pop up out of any circumstance; it is not a matter of numbers. But, again, that is JMO.

[iacas]

Is that your opinion or is that a fact?. Because I have been cautioned here about stating opinion as fact.

You don't seem to grasp the differences.

Michael Jordan honed his skills in Wilmington, NC. Larry Bird was from French Lick, Indiana, for Christ's sake, a place that is lot more like Lost Springs, Wyoming than Los Angeles.

Jack Nicklaus was a suburban kid from Columbus, Ohio and he wasn't just the best golffer in the are, he was the best overall athlete.

Good golfers (or basketball players, for that matter) can pop up out of any circumstance; it is not a matter of numbers. But, again, that is JMO.

You too have missed the point. Given two towns, one of 10 and one of 10,000, which is most likely to produce the best basketball player? Or golfer? Or concert pianist? Or porn star? Or whatever?

Given a town of 11 and a town of 11,000, which team can field the best football team? Sure, the town of 11 might have the best overall player (though again, highly unlikely), maybe even the best two (even more highly unlikely), but the depth of the pool from the population 11,000 town will win out in the end almost every time.

My kid didn't hesitate to answer. It's basic statistics.

[waldo]

It is debatable that it is the "gold standard," but even if it is the most important thing, Tiger has actually won a greater percentage of majors he has been in and he dominates so may other categories that it sways the argument to his favor, IMO. Troy Aikman won 3 Super Bowls to Peyton Manning's one - does that make him a better QB? No.

Tiger Woods            Jack Nicklaus
Tournaments won (through 300 starts) 77                                 54
Tournament winning % (300 starts) 26.0                              18.0
Majors won (first 63 starts) 14                                 14
Major winning % 22.2                              22.2
Major top 5s 31                                 41
Major top 10s 37                                 48
Longest streak of top-5 in majors 6                                   7
Longest streak of top-10 in majors 8                                  13
Lowest scoring avg. 8 times                         8 times
Money leader 9 times                         8 times

We cant measure speculation and projections. We can measure actual numbers from actual tournaments played.

Lets not hold it against Nicklaus that he played majors well past his prime, and lets not assume that Woods will do the same or that Woods will win Multiple Majors over the next 20 plus years.

[phan52]

You don't seem to grasp the differences.

You too have missed the point. Given two towns, one of 10 and one of 10,000, which is most likely to produce the best basketball player? Or golfer? Or concert pianist? Or porn star? Or whatever?

Given a town of 11 and a town of 11,000, which team can field the best football team? Sure, the town of 11 might have the best overall player (though again, highly unlikely), maybe even the best two (even more highly unlikely), but the depth of the pool from the population 11,000 town will win out in the end almost every time.

My kid didn't hesitate to answer. It's basic statistics.

Frankly, you are missing the point. Arguably one of the best basketball players in history came from French Lick, Indiana. Statistics are a tool, not factual. You admit yourself that the best overall player may come from the small town. Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson came from the same damn caddie yard in Texas!  What are the statistical chances of that?

But I am not going to digress. I believe that stephenf made a very well thought out and complete analysis to come up with his opinion and I'll leave it at that.

One more thing though, I am sure that if I made that statement about a kid directed at you I would be warned about insults. But I can't play that card.

[Phil McGleno]

You left out Longest streak of top-1 in majors Tiger 4 Jack 2?[quote name="waldo" url="/t/2203/jack-or-tiger-whos-the-greatest/3924#post_909713"] Tiger Woods            Jack Nicklaus Tournaments won (through 300 starts) 77                                 54 Tournament winning % (300 starts) 26.0                              18.0 Majors won (first 63 starts) 14                                 14 Major winning % 22.2                              22.2 Major top 5s 31                                 41 Major top 10s 37                                 48 Longest streak of top-5 in majors 6                                   7 Longest streak of top-10 in majors 8                                  13 Lowest scoring avg. 8 times                         8 times Money leader 9 times                         8 times We cant measure speculation and projections. We can measure actual numbers from actual tournaments played. Lets not hold it against Nicklaus that he played majors well past his prime, and lets not assume that Woods will do the same or that Woods will win Multiple Majors over the next 20 plus years. [/quote]

[iacas]

Frankly, you are missing the point. Arguably one of the best basketball players in history came from French Lick, Indiana.

That's ironic, but you don't seem to understand why…

You admit yourself that the best overall player may come from the small town.

That could easily happen, yes. Absolutely. The best overall player could come from a town of four people. In fact, given the populations of rural vs. city dwelling, and how you define "small town" versus "big city" you could probably even massage the data to a point where it's likely . But that's simply because you're considering ALL small towns, not one particular small town.

But this is precisely why you're missing the point. I'm quoting those types of statistics because I'm talking about strength of field , not how good any single player is.

The top 100 golfers in the world pulled from a golfing population of 50 million are far, far, far more likely to be better than the top 100 golfers pulled from a golfing population of 10 million.

But I am not going to digress. I believe that stephenf made a very well thought out and complete analysis to come up with his opinion and I'll leave it at that.

We disagree on that, and my reasoning is above.

One more thing though, I am sure that if I made that statement about a kid directed at you I would be warned about insults. But I can't play that card.

I asked my kid. She answered (correctly) very quickly. It's pretty basic stuff.

[jamo]

Michael Jordan honed his skills in Wilmington, NC. Larry Bird was from French Lick, Indiana, for Christ's sake, a place that is lot more like Lost Springs, Wyoming than Los Angeles.

Oh good, so you know your weakness there. Because Michael Jordan was actually born in Brooklyn, like a huge percentage of NBA players. Kinda hurts the story, but whatever you need to make your case, right?

[phan52]

That's ironic, but you don't seem to understand why…

That could easily happen, yes. Absolutely. The best overall player could come from a town of four people. In fact, given the populations of rural vs. city dwelling, and how you define "small town" versus "big city" you could probably even massage the data to a point where it's likely. But that's simply because you're considering ALL small towns, not one particular small town.

But this is precisely why you're missing the point. I'm quoting those types of statistics because I'm talking about strength of field, not how good any single player is.

The top 100 golfers in the world pulled from a golfing population of 50 million are far, far, far more likely to be better than the top 100 golfers pulled from a golfing population of 10 million.

We disagree on that, and my reasoning is above.

I asked my kid. She answered (correctly) very quickly. It's pretty basic stuff.

So you are teaching your kid that statistics are fact? Interesting.

The point you are completely missing is the point of the thread. Look at the title. It is about who is the greatest, Jack or Tiger, not whether the 100th ranked player is better today than in 1968. Besides, I am still of the opinion that there are scores of players today in the top 100 who are fairly comfortable with their lot in life, making hundreds of thousands of dollars, being treated like kings. and riding the gravy train. It is human nature. Your "statistics" don't change that. The all-exempt tour means that they don't even have to make cuts to get in the next event. Not a rabbit in the bunch.

JMO.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Michael Jordan honed his skills in Wilmington, NC. Larry Bird was from French Lick, Indiana, for Christ's sake, a place that is lot more like Lost Springs, Wyoming than Los Angeles.

Posted by jamo

Oh good, so you know your weakness there.

Because Michael Jordan was actually born in Brooklyn, like a huge percentage of NBA players.

Kinda hurts the story, but whatever you need to make your case, right?

Michael Jordan was two when his family moved to NC and it is very likely that he never even had a basketball in his hands while in Brooklyn. .

Whatever you need ot make a case, indeed...

[iacas]

So you are teaching your kid that statistics are fact? Interesting.

Are the odds of rolling a three on a standard die one in six? Yep. Does that mean if you roll a die six times you'll get every number once? Not even close.

The point you are completely missing is the point of the thread. Look at the title. It is about who is the greatest, Jack or Tiger, not whether the 100th ranked player is better today than in 1968.

Field strength is relevant to the question of whether Tiger is better than Jack.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

So you are teaching your kid that statistics are fact? Interesting.

Originally Posted by iacas

Are the odds of rolling a three on a standard die one in six? Yep. Does that mean if you roll a die six times you'll get every number once? Not even close.

Thank you for making my point.

[newtogolf]

Oh good, so you know your weakness there.

Because Michael Jordan was actually born in Brooklyn, like a huge percentage of NBA players.

Kinda hurts the story, but whatever you need to make your case, right?

Although I disagree with most of what phan says, you have to be fair here, Jordan was born in Brooklyn but his family moved to Wilmington, NC when he was 2 or 3 so hard to fully credit Brooklyn with grooming him to be the best basketball player that ever lived.

[phan52]

Although I disagree with most of what phan says, you have to be fair here, Jordan was born in Brooklyn but his family moved to Wilmington, NC when he was 2 or 3 so hard to fully credit Brooklyn with grooming him to be the best basketball player that ever lived.

I find it interesting that I already pointed that out in a post, but it has been deleted. Curious.