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

[Ernest Jones]

Or we could just drive this thing so far off topic that he has no choice but to lock it. If you don't think Tiger is the GOAT then you're a racist. Jack was the most honorable man to carry a golf club since Bill Clinton. It is a FACT that I am much, much smarter than any of you. Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

Lol, that's exactly why clicking in the text box should transport you back to the start of the thread, everything you just said has been said as nausea over the past 41 pages. Pretty much verbatim too.

[bplewis24]

Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

Doo doo is no different from caca, so both are off-limits.

[metrybill]

This Jack v. Tiger v. Jack v. everyone else debate has evolved into a huge and well-deserved thread for so many reasons, both obvious and not-so-obvious.  Every aspect, pro and con, can be supported with statistical data.

I would like the following to be open for discussion.  As someone who has played since the 60's, I would like to attempt to put a host of topics into perspective for conversation.  I offer the following as food for thought and discussion, not as absolute fact. These are observations and speculation only.

EXPOSE? How many of us are fed up with the least known facts of modern golf? So if you were to ask, how far did Nicklaus hit his 7 iron in comparison (cf.) to Tiger the answer will be seriously skewed.  The following are observations and opinions, not intended as "facts."

Equipment:

The shorter the club the more important for accuracy is the lie angle for irons.

All things being equal, the heavier the shaft, the more accuracy.

Driver: Today's metal drivers typically spec at 44.5 to 45" with graphite shafts.  Nicklaus played with a heavy, 130+ gm. steel-shafted 43" driver w/2.0 torque cf. to today's, lighter 65 to 80 gm graphite-shafted driver. Given the basic math, would someone be willing to do it for us? 2" more radius and less overall mass.

Across the board, mathematically, not experientially, today's increases in driver swing speed  and distance are due to longer shafts and lighter, lower overall weight v. old days' shorter, heavier, more accurate, steel shaft.

Due to the gear effect, wooden drivers of the past were more accurate than today's.

Spec-wise, today's 7 iron is more like the 6 and 5 irons of my youth.  Lengths and lofts have been jacked up for marketing and playability, both. Today's W is more like the 9 and 8 of my early years. Today's 3 woods are like the driver of my early years at 43".

Today's wedges are far, far more sophisticated and better than those of those of my early years,with way, way more options at every level of the game, bounce and sole options.

Today's course conditions, except for the rough and bunker sand (then awful!), are far more demanding today.

Green speeds today are far more demanding.   Witness the attraction to shorted shafted putters.Dave Pelz and Sotty Cameron.

Please don't assume that you know where I am going with this.

In the Nicklaus era, the balls were good but were very spinny in all planes, so left-to- right and right-to-left were probably easier shots than with the modern ball. The modern ball is probably a better and more predictable ball for putting and short game. The older balls were easier to move in an intended direction left to right or right-to-left) than today's balls.

Green side tight lies, no difference, except today's Pros can have instant,accurate, on-site custom grinding at a tournament.

Today's courses are longer, but not necessarily more difficult. I would love to see Pebble played from its traditional 6,700 yard length with no one able to play it with a club longer than 43".

Today's putters (fitting, MOI and certain sweet spot in line with the middle of the head) are much, much better.

No. 1: Lie angles for irons, wedges, and putters are far better understood today. The shorter the club, the more important is the lie angle.

Did you know, the USGA and the ProTour have very demanding specs for their bunker sand?  Check it out.

The modern golf ball is destroying golf. It goes too far. Land is expensive and so is the cost of maintaining it.

Metrybill

[iacas]

The shorter the club the more important for accuracy is the lie angle for irons.

What does that have to do with determining the best player? They both used the equipment available to them at the time, as did their competitors. Tiger's equipment is better, but so is that of Tiger's competitors, which narrows the skill gap.

Due to the gear effect, wooden drivers of the past were more accurate than today's.

Modern drivers have gear effect, too, and I don't think that's accurate. The opposite is more true: modern drivers are more accurate than wooden drivers. This can be shown as fact, and is not opinion.

The modern golf ball is destroying golf. It goes too far. Land is expensive and so is the cost of maintaining it.

And your post had virtually nothing to do with the topic.

[mvmac]

Equipment:

The shorter the club the more important for accuracy is the lie angle for irons.

Better check out this thread

Originally Posted by metrybill

Due to the gear effect, wooden drivers of the past were more accurate than today's.

Where did you come up with this?  Go hit a persimmon driver off the toe and then hit a modern driver off the toe and tell which one is more accurate.  Reducing the effects of gear effect equals straighter shots, more gear effect means the ball will curve more.

Spec-wise, today's 7 iron is more like the 6 and 5 irons of my youth.  Lengths and lofts have been jacked up for marketing and playability, both. Today's W is more like the 9 and 8 of my early years. Today's 3 woods are like the driver of my early years at 43".

What does that have to do with Tiger vs Jack?  Tiger plays weaker lofts than most players on tour anyway.

[turtleback]

This Jack v. Tiger v. Jack v. everyone else debate has evolved into a huge and well-deserved thread for so many reasons, both obvious and not-so-obvious.  Every aspect, pro and con, can be supported with statistical data.

I would like the following to be open for discussion.  As someone who has played since the 60's, I would like to attempt to put a host of topics into perspective for conversation.  I offer the following as food for thought and discussion, not as absolute fact. These are observations and speculation only.

EXPOSE? How many of us are fed up with the least known facts of modern golf? So if you were to ask, how far did Nicklaus hit his 7 iron in comparison (cf.) to Tiger the answer will be seriously skewed.  The following are observations and opinions, not intended as "facts."

Equipment:

The shorter the club the more important for accuracy is the lie angle for irons.

All things being equal, the heavier the shaft, the more accuracy.

Driver: Today's metal drivers typically spec at 44.5 to 45" with graphite shafts.  Nicklaus played with a heavy, 130+ gm. steel-shafted 43" driver w/2.0 torque cf. to today's, lighter 65 to 80 gm graphite-shafted driver. Given the basic math, would someone be willing to do it for us? 2" more radius and less overall mass.

Across the board, mathematically, not experientially, today's increases in driver swing speed  and distance are due to longer shafts and lighter, lower overall weight v. old days' shorter, heavier, more accurate, steel shaft.

Due to the gear effect, wooden drivers of the past were more accurate than today's.

Spec-wise, today's 7 iron is more like the 6 and 5 irons of my youth.  Lengths and lofts have been jacked up for marketing and playability, both. Today's W is more like the 9 and 8 of my early years. Today's 3 woods are like the driver of my early years at 43".

Today's wedges are far, far more sophisticated and better than those of those of my early years,with way, way more options at every level of the game, bounce and sole options.

Today's course conditions, except for the rough and bunker sand (then awful!), are far more demanding today.

Green speeds today are far more demanding.   Witness the attraction to shorted shafted putters.Dave Pelz and Sotty Cameron.

Please don't assume that you know where I am going with this.

In the Nicklaus era, the balls were good but were very spinny in all planes, so left-to- right and right-to-left were probably easier shots than with the modern ball. The modern ball is probably a better and more predictable ball for putting and short game. The older balls were easier to move in an intended direction left to right or right-to-left) than today's balls.

Green side tight lies, no difference, except today's Pros can have instant,accurate, on-site custom grinding at a tournament.

Today's courses are longer, but not necessarily more difficult. I would love to see Pebble played from its traditional 6,700 yard length with no one able to play it with a club longer than 43".

Today's putters (fitting, MOI and certain sweet spot in line with the middle of the head) are much, much better.

No. 1: Lie angles for irons, wedges, and putters are far better understood today. The shorter the club, the more important is the lie angle.

Did you know, the USGA and the ProTour have very demanding specs for their bunker sand?  Check it out.

The modern golf ball is destroying golf. It goes too far. Land is expensive and so is the cost of maintaining it.

Metrybill

This whole message is one of the great non sequiturs of our time.

[dsc123]

This whole message is one of the great non sequiturs of our time.

Well, do be fair, he did say:

Please don't assume that you know where I am going with this.

So maybe that was on purpose

[shihtappens]

In my obnoxious opinion, without Trevino , Tiger's dad does not even CONSIDER golf for his son. Lee Trevino came so far, against so much. He's why slobs like me can even get near a golf course (without making a delivery).

[mvmac]

In my obnoxious opinion, without Trevino, Tiger's dad does not even CONSIDER golf for his son. Lee Trevino came so far, against so much. He's why slobs like me can even get near a golf course (without making a delivery).

The topic of the thread is debating which player is better, Tiger or Jack, not sure what your post has to do with that.

[shihtappens]

I am challenging the premise. If Lee Trevino had not accomplished what he did, Tiger would not have been a golfer. No Lee, no Eldrick. Trevino bust the mold and made it possible for a non-Wasp, non-wealthy, non-professional to get into an exclusive members-only sport. In addition to changing golf (and the social landscape) in this way, his amazing accomplishments, given the number of strokes he was spotting the world, put him in the conversation.

[shihtappens]

But it's no big deal. Just tryin to post something that hasn't been said a million times already in this thread. :-)

[mvmac]

I am challenging the premise. If Lee Trevino had not accomplished what he did, Tiger would not have been a golfer. No Lee, no Eldrick. Trevino bust the mold and made it possible for a non-Wasp, non-wealthy, non-professional to get into an exclusive members-only sport. In addition to changing golf (and the social landscape) in this way, his amazing accomplishments, given the number of strokes he was spotting the world, put him in the conversation.

Agree Trevino is one of the best of all time and don't forget Arnie's role in popularizing golf for the average Joe, but this conversation is dealing with Jack vs Tiger.

[mmoan2]

Agree Trevino is one of the best of all time and don't forget Arnie's role in popularizing golf for the average Joe, but this conversation is dealing with Jack vs Tiger.

I've come back to this thread numerous times and have failed to do so any longer because there's nothing more to say, but now I have two things to add. Even though, yes, this forum is titled "Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest" I don't see why it's off topic for someone to challenge the premise by offering that the answer is NEITHER of them, but actually someone else. It's not like people are chiming in with opinions about the Iranian nuclear program. It seems kind of crazy to ask people to create a new forum called "Jack vs. Hogan: who's the GOAT, and "Tiger vs. Snead"etc. if they want to make those comparisons. I think most people agree that Tiger and Jack are the choices for GOAT by default, so a few occasional votes for Hogan, Trevino, Snead, Jones, etc. would seem welcome instead of being shooed off as off-topic. Is the point of a forum to keep all the discussions completely compartmentalized, or to foster debate from often far less learned folks with equal enthusiasm as the moderators? Yes, if 50+ posts in a row are off-topic, it's time to get the horses back in the barn, but as much as I like this forum, I see a lot of comments from newbies being flagged with the "off topic" penalty, and I wonder if anyone has thought about why it's so important to do that. Anyway, run your forum as you like, but it's just an observation made from someone who enjoys your forum.

2nd - about the logic that without Trevino there'd be no Tiger...Point well taken, and you're right that it seems impossible to say anything here that hasn;t been said already, but I'm not sure if your logic holds water. I don;t think we can argue that Jackie Robinson was a better baseball player than Willie Mays because he broke the color barrier. As good as Trevino was, he'd be the first to admit that Jack lapped him several times as has Tiger. I do appreciate the attempt to add something more than 18>14=Jack for the umpteenth time, though

[mvmac]

I've come back to this thread numerous times and have failed to do so any longer because there's nothing more to say, but now I have two things to add. Even though, yes, this forum is titled "Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest" I don't see why it's off topic for someone to challenge the premise by offering that the answer is NEITHER of them, but actually someone else. It's not like people are chiming in with opinions about the Iranian nuclear program. It seems kind of crazy to ask people to create a new forum called "Jack vs. Hogan: who's the GOAT, and "Tiger vs. Snead"etc. if they want to make those comparisons. I think most people agree that Tiger and Jack are the choices for GOAT by default, so a few occasional votes for Hogan, Trevino, Snead, Jones, etc. would seem welcome instead of being shooed off as off-topic. Is the point of a forum to keep all the discussions completely compartmentalized, or to foster debate from often far less learned folks with equal enthusiasm as the moderators? Yes, if 50+ posts in a row are off-topic, it's time to get the horses back in the barn, but as much as I like this forum, I see a lot of comments from newbies being flagged with the "off topic" penalty, and I wonder if anyone has thought about why it's so important to do that. Anyway, run your forum as you like, but it's just an observation made from someone who enjoys your forum.

Thanks for your input.  I think it's fine to include another player from time to time (I'm pretty sure Hogan was brought up several times) but I didn't want the thread to veer towards the influence Trevino's (or others) career did or did not have on Tiger.  If someone wants to "nominate" another player for GOAT I think it would be best to share some numbers/stats to validate their position.

[shihtappens]

I don;t think we can argue that Jackie Robinson was a better baseball player than Willie Mays because he broke the color barrier. As good as Trevino was, he'd be the first to admit that Jack lapped him several times as has Tiger.

Fair nuff. But Lee Trevino might allow that he, in part, enabled Tiger to be as good as he was, after Lee and others (in all walks of life; including buses, school steps, and olympic podiums) went first and got people used to the idea. The whole racial topic will all be as strangely archaic as insisting that golfers wear only collared shirts (a rule Tiger and Nike eventually bent) - once 40 more years go by and the US is largely Hispanic and Canada predominantly Asian.

Sorry for another VEER, but some people like salt, pepper, hot sauce or ketchup on their eggs, as opposed to, more eggs.

But, truth be told, it's the INTERNET, where 300-yard drives from 20 handicappers rule supreme, so a little "moderation" is NOT a bad thing! :-)

[tooc]

Jack, no doubt about it... even if Tiger passes 18 majors Jack was up against players with alot more steel..... Trevino, Palmer, Watson (when he could put), Seve, Player.... these guys did not loose Majors they had to be beaten.

[geauxforbroke]

Jack, no doubt about it... even if Tiger passes 18 majors Jack was up against players with alot more steel..... Trevino, Palmer, Watson (when he could put), Seve, Player.... these guys did not loose Majors they had to be beaten.

That's a really subjective statement. I'm not going to do research to see if it has merit. I'd be curious to see if you have any stats to back it up.

I did come across a pretty interesting article the other day comparing the strength of the field during Nicklaus's prime vs. Tiger's. They have a method they came up with which seems sound, but I'm sure there have been other analyses performed which are in conflict. Nonetheless, it's interesting, so I thought I would share. The full article can be found here .

The method:

First, the time periods being compared were set at 1962-1972 and 1997-2007. Now, I realize that Jack won 7 of his majors after his period. However, using the methodology below, this actually increases the chances of the field appearing stronger during Jack's time than Tiger's (since Tiger has won only 1 major subsequent to his respective "prime" period). For the sake of consistency and unbias, I think the writers just decided to go with the first 10 years after each player's first major.

Then the number of tournaments played for each year during the period was counted up, as well as the number of unique winners for each year . The number of tournaments and the number of annual unique winners was then totaled. Keep in mind that the number of different winners for the whole time span is not the number of overall unique winners, it is the sum of the unique winners for each of the 10 years.

Here are the results:

Category	1962-1972	1997-2007
Tournaments	474	519
Different Winners	329	369
% Different Winners	69%	71%
Majors	44*	44*
Different Winners	33	32
% Different Winners	75%	73%

*The time spans are actually 11 years,  not 10. Therefore 4 majors/year x 11 years = 44 majors.

So what does this all mean? The theory is that the greater the percentage of different winners, the stronger the field. As you can see, the percentages are very comparable. While the field would appear to be marginally stronger in majors during Jack's time, the field appears to be stronger during regular tournaments during Tiger's era. Given that all the percentages are within 6 points, I think it's safe to say there aren't really significant outliers, so we can draw some conclusions from all of this. And what's that conclusion? Tiger is playing against competition that is essentially the same as what Jack faced.

Again, this is just one way to look at it, and I'm sure someone will quickly point out the flaws of this analysis, but I thought it was worth a share.

[turtleback]

Jack, no doubt about it... even if Tiger passes 18 majors Jack was up against players with alot more steel..... Trevino, Palmer, Watson (when he could put), Seve, Player.... these guys did not loose Majors they had to be beaten.

What absolute nonsense.

If Seve didn't hit it into the water on 15 in the last round of the '86 Masters Tiger would be chasing 17, not 18.  And if, in the same round, Norman had hit the green on 18 from the middle of the fairway instead of blocking it into the crowd, Tiger might be chasing 17 anyway,

And let's talk about Palmer, and Jack's 1st pro major.  In the '62 US Open Palmer 3-putted 10 times and took 38 putts on Saturday.  Without that Jack never even gets into a playoff.

His second British Open:  Doug Sanders misses a 2--footer to give it away to Jack.

I could go on.  Jack himself said that his MO in the majors was to hang around and watch his competitors self-destruct.

Take off the rose-colored glasses.  There was a lot more to Jack's career than the great final round in the '86 Masters.  Which would have been meaningless if his "steel"y competitors had not thrown up on themselves down the stretch.