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

[club ho]

Not really as you just pointed out that you tripled counted Tiger's majors (PGA + Euro + Majors).  So take another 14 off Tiger.  And it's back to Jack.

I don't care who it is.  You just insist that the numbers don't lie.  So it's Jack.  As the numbers don't care how old someone is or who qualified for what and when.  The numbers are the numbers.   And they are the numbers you provided for your argument.  You can go ahead and try and rejustify them after they are proven inaccuarte but that seems rather folly doesn't it?

As I said I took them from Wikipedia they seem to have a similar accounting system for all the pro golfers try it you'll see where I got it. Just enter an established  pro golfers name. Correct me if I am wrong but I think they count USA majors as PGA tour wins and the british open as european wins. I am not sure how you get to 31 euro wins taken off tigers numbers.  I do see taking off his british open victories however. The same as you would take Jacks off. Please show me were the 31 victories should come off.

[Gridiron]

As I said I took them from Wikipedia they seem to have a similar accounting system for all the pro golfers try it you'll see where I got it. Just enter an established  pro golfers name. Correct me if I am wrong but I think they count USA majors as PGA tour wins and the british open as european wins. I am not sure how you get to 31 euro wins taken off tigers numbers.  I do see taking off his british open victories however. The same as you would take Jacks off. Please show me were the 31 victories should come off.

If you click on the link I include in my first post you will see the list of Tiger's 40 Euro wins.  Straight from the Euro Tour website.  You will see 31 WGC/Majors listed.  These are co-sanctioned events by both tours so both tours list them in their tour win totals.

[club ho]

Hold the phone folks! This really baffled me which as I am sure my adversaries don't find hard to believe! Anyway the way they presented the information is confusing. Anyway I didn't notice it before but they do have a total pro victories section for each player. which includes the PGA,Majors,European, Asian,etc. tour victories as well as champions tour. Tiger currently has 106 pro victories Jack has 115 pro victories. So  for now anyway Jack is still #1.

[turtleback]

YOU DON'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE YOU KNOW.

I JUST HAVE NEVER SEEN THE THERE NUMBERS CATEGORY BY CATEGORY BEFORE. THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS REALLY NO CONTEST AND TIGER IS ONLY 38.

Don't yell.  Regardless of why you did it it is still yelling.  Yes getting old sucks (been there) but it beats the alternative.  But using all caps because you misplaced your reading glasses is no more acceptable than yelling in a crowd because your hearing is going and you forgot to wear your aids..

And it is considered a breach of basic forum etiquette bordering on rudeness to start a new thread on a topic on which there is already an extensive active thread.  And if you haven't seen numbers like this it is because you didn't bother to read that existing thread.  Usually, at best a thread like this will get merged into the pre-existing thread.  Granted you think a lot of your particular assemblage of numbers, and I wouldn't dispute the point that they are very strong, except that they are rife with errors .

You have done some double and triple counting here.  WGC events are counted in the win total for both the PGA Tour AND the Eurotour.   And since you also counted majors separately, which are also included in the PGATour and Eurotour totals you have, effectively TRIPLE counted Tiger's majors and double counted his WGC events.  While you also gave Jack 0 Eurotour events, whereas in the current method of counting he would have at least 18 Eurotour wins credited to him for his 18 majors.  But proper methodology that purports to count actual wins would eliminate all of the double and triple counting.  I'll also just add that I am pretty sure all this ground was covered in the ongoing thread.

So your totals are basically meaningless because they aren't actual totals of anything.  And I say that as a committed (some say I SHOULD be committed) advocate of the Tiger is #1 position.  I just don't see the need to use misleading numbers to make the case.

Edit:  Ah, I should have read to the end of the thread since my points have already been made.  I'll just add that total number of pro wins is just as good (and by good I mean terrible) way to compare them as is 18>14.

[club ho]

Don't yell.  Regardless of why you did it it is still yelling.  Yes getting old sucks (been there) but it beats the alternative.  But using all caps because you misplaced your reading glasses is no more acceptable than yelling in a crowd because your hearing is going and you forgot to wear your aids..

And it is considered a breach of basic forum etiquette bordering on rudeness to start a new thread on a topic on which there is already an extensive active thread.  And if you haven't seen numbers like this it is because you didn't bother to read that existing thread.  Usually, at best a thread like this will get merged into the pre-existing thread.  Granted you think a lot of your particular assemblage of numbers, and I wouldn't dispute the point that they are very strong, except that they are rife with errors.

You have done some double and triple counting here.  WGC events are counted in the win total for both the PGA Tour AND the Eurotour.   And since you also counted majors separately, which are also included in the PGATour and Eurotour totals you have, effectively TRIPLE counted Tiger's majors and double counted his WGC events.  While you also gave Jack 0 Eurotour events, whereas in the current method of counting he would have at least 18 Eurotour wins credited to him for his 18 majors.  But proper methodology that purports to count actual wins would eliminate all of the double and triple counting.  I'll also just add that I am pretty sure all this ground was covered in the ongoing thread.

So your totals are basically meaningless because they aren't actual totals of anything.  And I say that as a committed (some say I SHOULD be committed) advocate of the Tiger is #1 position.  I just don't see the need to use misleading numbers to make the case.

If you click on the link I include in my first post you will see the list of Tiger's 40 Euro wins.  Straight from the Euro Tour website.  You will see 31 WGC/Majors listed.  These are co-sanctioned events by both tours so both tours list them in their tour win totals.

Yes you are right see my post above!  Jack 115   vs Tiger 106.  Funny they did not list Jack's co-sanctioned events in wikipedia as euro wins. Must have been a SNAFU on there part.

[club ho]

In terms of my "YELLING" sorry if it really hurt anyones feelings but really I suggest you push back from the key board and go have a smoke or something if that really bothers you. I won't do it again.

[Gridiron]

Can't believe everything you read on the internet.  Actually have to do some homework of your own.

Euro Tour wasn't around when Jack started so only 10 of Jack's wins count as Euro wins as well.

http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/players/playerid=138/wins/index.html

[boogielicious]

Funny thing about generations, we typically favour the one we are part of. I won't argue Orr or Gretzky because I watched them both. If you never saw Jack, then you don't know Jack! When you age a little you might understand.

I saw Bobby Orr play a thousand times.  No way is Jack better than Bobby Orr.  It is not even close.

[bplewis24]

[mmoan2]

I vote that the guy who started this thread deserves a Kickstarter lifetime achievement award...

[SteveBamford]

Well Woods has been around in an age where he has received massive worldwide exposure.  Every tournament is beamed around the world and his image has grown because of that.  Jack's achievements are huge, but naturally the coverage back then was nowhere near as complete or broad brush.  I'd hazard a guess to say that Tiger gets far more votes in this thread than Jack and that's understandable given the above and the fact that he's competing and still winning now. But for me it's all about the Major wins.  The Golden Bear wins out.

[geauxforbroke]

But for me it's all about the Major wins.

So just to clarify, you ignore all other statistics and look at just this one to determine all time greatest?

[metrybill]

I hope to give all of you some food for thought and welcome your critical comments. Keep in mind that I am not an expert, just an avid golfer and love the topic.

When all is said and done, I think the microscopically short list of the best ever in the "modern" era should be in alphabetical order: Ben Hogan, Bobby Jones (in a different category), Jack Nicklaus, and Tiger Woods,(Before them, including Walter Hagen,we have an entirely different topic.)

At 38 y.o. Tiger's window of opportunity to win 4 more "majors" to tie Jack's 14 is clearly closing quickly. Even Tiger talks about the relevancy of the majors.  Tiger may be a spectacular physical specimen but unless he restrains and retrains himself, his body is going to breakdown.  There is time, but .... For discussion, I looked up some facts which have probably already been listed before.

Jack won his last of 14 majors at the following, approximate ages:

no. 15 at age 38, nos. 16  and 17 at age 40, and no. 18 at age 46.

Hagen won the last of his 11 majors at approximately 37.

Hogan won 9 majors, despite serving in the Armed Forces during WWII from '43 to '45, and the near tragic accident of '49 at age 36. Having heroically rebuilt his body and his swing he won majors at the following, approximate ages:

no 4 at age 38, no 5 at age 39, nos 6, 7 and 8 at age 41

Does anyone think Tiger is as fierce and determined as this man? Not me.

Gary Player  (no one ever more fit) won his last of 9 majors at the following, approximate ages:

nos.  7 and 8 at age 39 and no. 9 at age 43

Tom Watson won the last of his 8 majors at age 34.

Gene Sarazen won the last of his 7 majors at age 33.

Sam Snead won the last of his 7 majors at age 42

Palmer won the last of his 7 majors at age 35

Harry Vardon's last of 7 at age 44.

Lee Trevino's last of 6 at age 45

NIck Faldo's last of 6 at age 39

Mickelson with 5 is still playing, last one in 2013 at age 44.

Count them, of the approximately 125 majors, only 16 were won by players of 38 years or older.  If one eliminates the age of 38, there have only been 6 players who have won at age 39 or older. Among this hall of fame group of 12, collectively there have been only 8 majors won. Only 1 of them, Hogan, won more than 1.

Tiger has played in approximately 70 majors and won 14, a 20% win streak.  However, he is 0 for the last 20, a trend going in reverse.

Tiger's narrow window appears to be 38 and 41 (only 16 majors) to put himself in position to catch Jack. He hasn't won a major since 2008. The last time he won 2 in a season was 2006. Unless he pulls a "Hogan," 4 wins at ages 39 to 43, I don't see it happening.

If Tiger hadn't gone off the ranch with his ridiculous military, narcissistic style training leading to injuries and the distractions of his public indiscretions (2009), he might have made it more easily.

What a waste. What could have been?

Just as a last thought. Check out how many multiple "majors" winners Jack played against v. how many Tiger has played against.

I do very much lean toward Jack as No. 1 for several reasons, not the least of which are his 19 seconds and 8 come from behind victories to Tiger's 0.  I do recognize Tiger's status as No. 2 in waiting for No. 1. There is time for him but not much. I would also put Hogan at No. 2 all-time, giving him serious credit for his WWII and accident "lost years. "

This is not the golden age of golf; this is the golden age of equipment.

[iacas]

Jack won his last of 14 majors at the following, approximate ages:

no. 15 at age 38, nos. 16  and 17 at age 40, and no. 18 at age 46.

So… if Tiger wins only one this year, and none next year, and two the next year (or any combination of three in the next 12 chances), he's right on pace with Jack.

Hagen

Hogan

Gary Player

Tom Watson

Gene Sarazen

Sam Snead

Palmer

Harry Vardon

Lee Trevino

NIck Faldo

Mickelson

How many of those players won ten majors total, let alone 14? The problem with comparing those types of players is that Tiger's clearly better than all of them.

And Phil Mickelson, btw, started winning them late but has won five, including one last year at a pretty late age. His career also isn't over.

Tiger's narrow window appears to be 38 and 41 (only 16 majors) to put himself in position to catch Jack. He hasn't won a major since 2008. The last time he won 2 in a season was 2006. Unless he pulls a "Hogan," 4 wins at ages 39 to 43, I don't see it happening.

Or a Nicklaus… and again, this way of looking at things is skewed because the only guy to win at least 14 majors had 14 majors when he turned 38 years old. Jack.

Just as a last thought. Check out how many multiple "majors" winners Jack played against v. how many Tiger has played against.

This is not the golden age of golf; this is the golden age of equipment.

We've addressed both of these. First of all, improved equipment makes it tougher to win. And the average PGA Tour player is way ahead of the guys Jack played against. Both of those make it tougher to win a single major these days let alone 14. Many feel that 14 > 18 given these things, for example.

I do very much lean toward Jack as No. 1 for several reasons, not the least of which are his 19 seconds and 8 come from behind victories to Tiger's 0.  I do recognize Tiger's status as No. 2 in waiting for No. 1. There is time for him but not much. I would also put Hogan at No. 2 all-time, giving him serious credit for his WWII and accident "lost years. "

So you only count majors? What about regular PGA Tour events? Money titles? Scoring averages? Player of the Year honors? Etc. Jack can hardly sniff Tiger's jock in those categories. Yet you choose to count 19 seconds in majors… why? Because you want Jack to come out ahead?

---

You said to pick it apart. There's my quick version of that.

[MS256]

If Tiger hadn't gone off the ranch with his ridiculous military, narcissistic style training leading to injuries

Just as a last thought. Check out how many multiple "majors" winners Jack played against v. how many Tiger has played against.

(1) You may be right but I know housewives and accountants that have "injuries" too. Impossible to lay this latest back problem for sure on any training. My personal opinion is that it's both the swing he uses and the level of fitness he has that creates more torque and speed than his body can take over time.

(2) Of course there were "multiple Major winners". There weren't very many guys that were very good. Now there are literally hundreds of golfers worldwide that can win a Major. No contest with the talent pool sizes. Much harder to win a Major today just based on that alone.

[metrybill]

Really.  tell us who

Really?  Tell Us any Great player whom Tiger has climbed over on Sunday.  His red, Sunday shirt is a sham.  If he is not ahead by Saturday, he doesn't win. By My count the Tigger is totally irrelevant on Sunday , unless he is already in the lead. He is like ....., looks good but smells bad.  Hogan, Hagen, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Casper, would own this guy.

.

[jamo]

Really.  tell us who Really?  Tell Us any Great player whom Tiger has climbed over on Sunday.  His red, Sunday shirt is a sham.  If he is not ahead by Saturday, he doesn't win. By My count the Tigger is totally irrelevant on Sunday , unless he is already in the lead. He is like ....., looks good but smells bad.  Hogan, Hagen, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Casper, would own this guy.   .

The fact that Tiger's never won a major without being in the lead after 54 holes is a meaningless statistical anomaly. It's not like Tiger's got some bad come-from-behind gene; we've seen him to it a dozen times in regular Tour events. Just because he's never done it in a major doesn't mean he can't do it. Also, Tiger's seldom had the chance to come from behind in a majors, because when he's playing well, he's got the 54-hole lead. He played well enough 14 TIMES that he didn't need to come from behind.

[MS256]

Really.  tell us who

Really?  Tell Us any Great player whom Tiger has climbed over on Sunday.  His red, Sunday shirt is a sham.  If he is not ahead by Saturday, he doesn't win. By My count the Tigger is totally irrelevant on Sunday, unless he is already in the lead. He is like ....., looks good but smells bad.  Hogan, Hagen, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Casper, would own this guy.

.

I can't see how anybody could ignore the size of the talent pool enough to even make a statement like that. It would be like me trying to pick a golf team from the smallest 1A high school that could beat a golf team from the largest 6A school...Not going to happen.

Do you have any idea how few people even played golf seriously when Hagen played compared to today? Even when Hogan played there was so little money to be made that most people had to quickly give it up and find a "real job". Even Hogan and Nelson were on the verge of having to quit early in their careers. We've never heard of the ones that did quit because they were fresh out of money for entry fees.