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

[Abu3baid]

I wouldn't go that far. Maybe they do believe it. I just want to see the evidence and compare it to what actually happened in Jack's era. I don't believe there is all that much difference. Not where actual winning is concerned.

Fair enough!

[iacas]

Erik, who are the 5 best examples of "anyone" winning a major during the Tiger era. I know who I would choose, but what is your take on who these players are.

Please multiquote rather than have multiple responses in separate posts.

I'm not going to go back and look, but off the top of my head, we've got Sean Micheel, Mike Weir, Michael Campbell, Ben Curtis, etc. Todd Hamilton's pretty bad too.

The point is not about who won. It's about who could have possibly won. Their equivalents in 1972 or whatever were club pros who had NO CHANCE at all of winning.

Jack had to beat 15 or 20 guys. Tiger has to beat 100. Now, yes, some of those 100 have around a 1% chance of winning, but 80 of the players in the field in Jack's day had much closer to a 0% chance.

Maybe it is a pointless exercise the way you are thinking about it.. What I am trying to show is that who are the best players that would be giving each of the golfers a run for their money in winning!

No, I don't think that it is, or that you're really reading what I've been saying.

I mentioned in earlier posts that I don't care about the no name players.. Also, I don't car about the players that strike lightning in a bottle, If you want them categorized then I don't care about B or C players.. I only want to compare the A players in each era against each other!

Okay.

Jack's era: 5 A players.

Tiger's era: 150 A players.

Go ahead, compare.

Do you understand yet why the way you want to look at things is skewed? That any A player from Jack's era is likely going to have more "achievements" than any player from Tiger's era?

Seriously, guys: the good guys on the Web.com Tour are better than the average PGA Tour pro during the 1970s. It's probably not even that close.

@david_wedzik qualified for the Web.com (then Nike) Tour in the 90s. He can tell you - and he will - that the talent pool has changed enormously since then , let alone from the 60s and 70s.

I think it is impossible to quantify what you are suggesting.

I don't think it's impossible at all.

If you have to choose the five best basketball players for your high school team, are you likely to get a better team choosing from a pool of 500 students or 5,000 students?

Far, far more people - and better athletes at that - play golf now as opposed to the 30s and 40s and 50s when Jack's competition was growing up. The talent pool is deeper - significantly so.

Plus, @jamo just wrote an article that quantifies quite a few aspects of this debate.

Erik stated that anyone in the field can win. In theory this is correct, but this would be correct, in theory, ay any time.

Let's be reasonable about this: a club pro had roughly 0.00000000001% chance of winning an event into which he was entered if 10 of the top 20 guys were playing. They had as much chance of winning as a modern +2 handicap golfer has of winning on the PGA Tour. It ain't happenin'.

I think I can make a strong case that for every back of the field guy that actually won a major during Tiger's run, using objective standards I can find a similar player in Jack's era.

You can't, because you cannot compare field strength. The guys Jack was playing against - the half of the fields comprised of club pros - don't even qualify these days (PGA Championship excluded, and when was the last time any of the 20 club pros contended in that?). They don't even make the Web.com Tour.

I think part of the pro Tiger thesis is that equipment is better, golf course management is better, so it naturally follows that players are better.

I haven't seen anyone state that.

Equipment being better narrows the gap. It makes it tougher for the better player to separate himself. Give a 3 handicapper modern equipment and take him back to 1913 and we'd have never heard of Francis Ouimet because that guy would have won by ten.

Players are better because they're drawing from a much larger pool of talent, are more driven to put time and energy into practicing because of the tremendous amount of money available, etc.

To me that does not make it any easier or harder to win. Winning is about finding some difference, some edge, or just being plain better than the next best guy.

Better equipment narrows the gap between "great" and "good enough to win." It reduces that "edge" that better players have that allow them to separate themselves.

Both of them not only had to beat 1 player, but 10 or 20 or 30 players.

And Tiger has had to beat more guys capable of actually winning the thing than Jack did.

The hardest guys to beat weren't the guys that missed the cut, or even those that came in 47th. They were the guys closest to the top of the leader board. I believe that those guys look remarkably similar in terms of accomplishment in each era.

And I believe you're smoking something.

Bear in mind that "the majors" presents a very small sample size. We could include the entire PGA Tour results as a means of assessing the strength of field.

But really, it's common sense. The basketball example clarifies this nicely. You take your team from 500, I'll take my team from 5,000. I'm far, far more likely to win with my team, and the best player on my team is more likely to be better than the best player on your team.

The strength of field argument needs a metric though.. Unless the tiger camp is willing to drop this part of the argument and look some where else.. Just like they don't like the 18>14 argument I am sure the jack side rolls their eyes every time the strength of field is brought up!

If Jack fans roll their eyes, they may as well plug their ears and hum a tune.

18 > 14 is a simplified, simple-minded way to look at things. Talking about strength of field is anything but.

Tell you what. Let's go back in time to Phil MIckelson's rookie year, and make a rule that only left-handed (playing) golfers can compete on the PGA Tour or in majors. BAM. Phil wins 25 majors. He wins just about 40% of the events in which he ever plays, particularly the first few years until other golfers switch to lefty and become decent players.

Best ever? No. Diminished strength of field.

They don't really believe that anyone can win though! I think they just say it in jest.. Otherwise, I'd love to see the gamblers out there put $500 for example on the 115 ranked player at the next major! Any takers?

Betting on someone who has about a 1% chance is still a wiser bet than betting on someone who has a 0.00000001% chance… which is what you'd be doing if you bet on a good chunk of the field in Jack's day.

Basic math, guys. A basketball team from 5,000,000 people is far more likely to beat a basketball team from 5,000 people, assuming the two pools are fairly similar (i.e. the 5,000,000 can't all be pygmies or something).

[jbishop15]

The debate over whether the strength of field is stronger now or then is just ludicrous to me. Look at literally any other sport, talk to anyone who played/plays/coaches baseball or basketball or football; they'll tell you the strength of field is a billion times better.

Let's use basketball as our prime example.

Jerry West is regarded as one of the best players to ever play the game. Well-respected by his peers and fans alike. He would get destroyed in todays game. Literally massacred. Players like Derrick Rose or Russell Westbrook would tear him apart.

Bill Russell is regarded as one of the top three players of all time. He was so dominant that was able to lead his Celtics to 11 championships in 13 seasons. In today's era? He wouldn't be regarded as one of the top two players of all time. His modern equivalent is Dwight Howard, who is definitely NOT regarded as one of the top 50 players in history.

Every decade the talent pool gets better and better for every sport. I'd wager you could stick Mike Trout in the MLB in the sixties and he would rip that league to shreds. I'd wager you could put Adrian Peterson in the NFL in the 1960's and he would run for 3000 yards. I'd wager you could stick Nate Robinson in the NBA in the sixties and just on sheer athleticism alone he would be a All-Star.

So why is that so hard to imagine for golf?

[Golfingdad]

The debate over whether the strength of field is stronger now or then is just ludicrous to me. Look at literally any other sport, talk to anyone who played/plays/coaches baseball or basketball or football; they'll tell you the strength of field is a billion times better.

Let's use basketball as our prime example.

Jerry West is regarded as one of the best players to ever play the game. Well-respected by his peers and fans alike. He would get destroyed in todays game. Literally massacred. Players like Derrick Rose or Russell Westbrook would tear him apart.

Bill Russell is regarded as one of the top three players of all time. He was so dominant that was able to lead his Celtics to 11 championships in 13 seasons. In today's era? He wouldn't be regarded as one of the top two players of all time. His modern equivalent is Dwight Howard, who is definitely NOT regarded as one of the top 50 players in history.

Every decade the talent pool gets better and better for every sport. I'd wager you could stick Mike Trout in the MLB in the sixties and he would rip that league to shreds. I'd wager you could put Adrian Peterson in the NFL in the 1960's and he would run for 3000 yards. I'd wager you could stick Nate Robinson in the NBA in the sixties and just on sheer athleticism alone he would be a All-Star.

So why is that so hard to imagine for golf?

I think you take too big of a leap of faith here.  You're not saying that the field is deeper, you're saying that EVERYBODY is better.  That's not remotely the same thing.

Also, you can't cherry-pick guys of today, who've benefiited from today's training advances and equipment advances and teaching advances and say that they are obviously better than the guys from back in the day.  That's a totally unfair comparison.

[Jakester23]

I think you take too big of a leap of faith here.  You're not saying that the field is deeper, you're saying that EVERYBODY is better.  That's not remotely the same thing. Also, you can't cherry-pick guys of today, who've benefiited from today's training advances and equipment advances and teaching advances and say that they are obviously better than the guys from back in the day.  That's a totally unfair comparison.

Why is it an unfair comparison when its a fact. Every player on tour even the lower tours are concentrating only on getting better. How many guys in Jack's era were afforded that luxury? Better technology (not only in clubs but about the swing) make for a better player.

[Abu3baid]

Please multiquote rather than have multiple responses in separate posts. I'm not going to go back and look, but off the top of my head, we've got Sean Micheel, Mike Weir, Michael Campbell, Ben Curtis, etc. Todd Hamilton's pretty bad too. The point is not about who won. It's about who could have possibly won. Their equivalents in 1972 or whatever were club pros who had NO CHANCE at all of winning. Jack had to beat 15 or 20 guys. Tiger has to beat 100. Now, yes, some of those 100 have around a 1% chance of winning, but 80 of the players in the field in Jack's day had much closer to a 0% chance. No, I don't think that it is, or that you're really reading what I've been saying. Okay. Jack's era: 5 A players. Tiger's era: 150 A players. Go ahead, compare. Do you understand yet why the way you want to look at things is skewed? That any A player from Jack's era is likely going to have more "achievements" than any player from Tiger's era? Seriously, guys: the good guys on the Web.com Tour are better than the average PGA Tour pro during the 1970s. It's probably not even that close. @david_wedzik qualified for the Web.com (then Nike) Tour in the 90s. He can tell you - and he will - that the talent pool has changed enormously since then , let alone from the 60s and 70s. I don't think it's impossible at all. If you have to choose the five best basketball players for your high school team, are you likely to get a better team choosing from a pool of 500 students or 5,000 students? Far, far more people - and better athletes at that - play golf now as opposed to the 30s and 40s and 50s when Jack's competition was growing up. The talent pool is deeper - significantly so. Plus, @jamo just wrote an article that quantifies quite a few aspects of this debate. Let's be reasonable about this: a club pro had roughly 0.00000000001% chance of winning an event into which he was entered if 10 of the top 20 guys were playing. They had as much chance of winning as a modern +2 handicap golfer has of winning on the PGA Tour. It ain't happenin'.   You can't, because you cannot compare field strength. The guys Jack was playing against - the half of the fields comprised of club pros - don't even qualify these days (PGA Championship excluded, and when was the last time any of the 20 club pros contended in that?). They don't even make the Web.com Tour.   I haven't seen anyone state that. Equipment being better narrows the gap. It makes it tougher for the better player to separate himself. Give a 3 handicapper modern equipment and take him back to 1913 and we'd have never heard of Francis Ouimet because that guy would have won by ten. Players are better because they're drawing from a much larger pool of talent, are more driven to put time and energy into practicing because of the tremendous amount of money available, etc. Better equipment narrows the gap between "great" and "good enough to win." It reduces that "edge" that better players have that allow them to separate themselves. And Tiger has had to beat more guys capable of actually winning the thing than Jack did. And I believe you're smoking something. :-) Bear in mind that "the majors" presents a very small sample size. We could include the entire PGA Tour results as a means of assessing the strength of field. But really, it's common sense. The basketball example clarifies this nicely. You take your team from 500, I'll take my team from 5,000. I'm far, far more likely to win with my team, and the best player on my team is more likely to be better than the best player on your team. If Jack fans roll their eyes, they may as well plug their ears and hum a tune. 18 > 14 is a simplified, simple-minded way to look at things. Talking about strength of field is anything but. Tell you what. Let's go back in time to Phil MIckelson's rookie year, and make a rule that only left-handed (playing) golfers can compete on the PGA Tour or in majors. BAM. Phil wins 25 majors. He wins just about 40% of the events in which he ever plays, particularly the first few years until other golfers switch to lefty and become decent players. Best ever? No. Diminished strength of field. Betting on someone who has about a 1% chance is still a wiser bet than betting on someone who has a 0.00000001% chance… which is what you'd be doing if you bet on a good chunk of the field in Jack's day. Basic math, guys. A basketball team from 5,000,000 people is far more likely to beat a basketball team from 5,000 people, assuming the two pools are fairly similar (i.e. the 5,000,000 can't all be pygmies or something).

I concede if we are going to talk about 1% or less of winning.. "So, you are saying there is a chance!!!l". In the end, they are no names who basically have no chance... Statistical anomalies should rarely be spoken realty.. You make some good points, but I really want to contest Tiger having to legitimately going through 100 players to win... Come on now.. Back to the 500$ bet on the 115th player and his 1% chance.. At what point does that become 5% chance for example? I think there are still just a handful of guys that can win tournaments each and every week.. I concede that the average player these days is better than the average player bak then.. What I'm asking and questioning are the top 10 better than the top ten back then.. Saying that is not a fair look because the modern players have more competition is just not cutting it for me! Also, I will give you 10 American soccer players and their pool while I'll take 10 German players and tier pool and I will put your theory to test and see how that works out... ;). What do you think?

[14ledo81]

@Abu3baid , regarding the soccer players..didn't Erik say something about pygmies??... :)

[Abu3baid]

@Abu3baid , regarding the soccer players..didn't Erik say something about pygmies??... :)

True, but that is why I gave him the option from the states and not china or India.. Even though both have played soccer much longer than the states and have much bigger populations.. 3 times more at least!

[jbishop15]

I think you take too big of a leap of faith here.  You're not saying that the field is deeper, you're saying that EVERYBODY is better.  That's not remotely the same thing.

Also, you can't cherry-pick guys of today, who've benefiited from today's training advances and equipment advances and teaching advances and say that they are obviously better than the guys from back in the day.  That's a totally unfair comparison.

The field being deeper means everybody has improved? Isn't that what deeper fields mean? Everyone being better? Of course its the same thing.

And I can cherry pick guys of today, that's literally the whole argument. Because they've benefited from the training of today they're better. That's literally how they got better. Better strength training, better golf instruction, better mental instruction. Even throwing out the vastly deeper, more athletic talent pool.

Of course its an unfair comparison; that's why this argument is stupid. With all the benefits listed above (even factoring in the old equipment) how could they not be better? Truly. How could they not be better?

If those guys had had the training, maybe they would be as good. But they didn't. So they aren't. That's at least partially why.

[9iron]

Erik, I am not going to quote your entire post as it can be lumped into a few salient easy to recognize themes.

Size of Pool

While I agree totally that a pool size of say 500 million people will produce more talent than a pool size of say 100 million people, I don't think it can be simplified to this argument. If it were this easy then you really would see more major winners coming from out of nowhere. Here is your list:

Sean Micheel, Mike Weir, Michael Campbell, Ben Curtis, etc. Todd Hamilton. Since these are the very least accomplished to have won a major during the Tiger era, let's examine these players that you believe represent the "anyone" that can win a major today.

Mike Weir has 15 professional wins, 8 of them being PGA Tour wins. He has one WGC event and one major. In the year he won that major he won 3 times and was ranked #5 in the World Golf rankings. Not exactly coming from far off the pace to win at Augusta.

Michael Campbell has 16 worldwide wins. 7 Australian Tour wins, 8 European Tour wins, and his lone PGA Tour win, the 2005 US Open. He got hot in 2005 finishing with no fewer than 5 top 5's that year, including winning the WGC Match Play at Wentworth along with his US Open title. Campbell ended that year ranked 16th in the WG Rankings.

Ben Curtis was a true outsider when he won the British Open, but Curtis still has 4 PGA Tour wins so he is not without some talent. He is a good example of an outsider, though.

Todd Hamilton has 15 wins outside the USA almost all of which came in Japan. He won 4 times in the year preceding his Open Championship. He has 2 PGA Tour wins, The 2004 Honda Classic and the 2004 British Open. He got hot and caught lightening in a bottle. Another good example of someone coming from out of nowhere.

Sean Micheel lone win ever is the PGA that he won. Great example.

Now, can we find similar guys from Jack's era? Yes. But if I list the least talented guys from Jack's era to actually win a major, they are no less talented than the guys winning in the Tiger era in so far as measurable results are concerned.

Orville Moody's lone PGA Tour win is his 1969 US Open win.

Bill Rogers was sort of like Mike Weir. Rogers has 6 PGA Tour wins, 3 of them coming in the year he won the Open Championship in 1981. Rogers was one of the better players in the world for that one year, and he got hot and won a major.

Charles Coody won 6 times during his regular playing days. He won a world series of golf event, 2 Euro Tour events and 3 PGA Tour events including the 1971 Masters.

Dave Marr won the 1965 PGA Championship among 3 other PGA Tour wins. He also had 3 top 10's in the US Open, a T2 at the Masters and a T8 at The Open Championship.

Tommy Aaron had 3 PGA Tour wins including his 1973 Masters.

Those are probably the least talented major winners during Jack's era. They look a lot like the group from Tiger's era.

Let's look at a couple of specific events. Let's look at who Tiger beat to win at Valhalla in the PGA Championship.

Tiger Woods and Bob May wound up in a playoff. Wasn't easy for Woods to win, but he did win. The next 8 players after that are Thomas Bjorn who finished 5 strokes back, Stewart Appleby, Greg Chalmers, Jose Marie Olozabel, Franklin Langham, Notah Begay, Darren Clarke, Scott Dunlap, Fred Funk, Davis Love and Phil Mickelson. No one is really close except Bob May. Olozabel is 6 back and Love and Mickelson are 9 back.

Let's look at who jack Beat to win the 1967 US Open

Arnold Palmer, Don January, Billy Casper, Dean Beman, Lee Trevino, Gardner Dickinson, Bob Goalby, Dave Marr, Kel Nagle and Art Wall.

Who did Jack beat to win the 1965 Masters? Palmer and Player

The 1978 Open Championship? Ray Floyd, Tom Kite, Ben Crenshaw and Simon Owen finished T2

You'll say it was easier. Lack of Depth. Today's players are better because more people play golf. But Jack still had to beat great players to win those events, and more of them than many of the majors won by Tiger. At the end of the day, you either won or you didn't win. Jack won 18 times. Tiger 14.

And if today's 100th ranked guy were playing in 1913 we'd still know about Ouimet. The 100th ranked guy today wouldn't know a niblet from a mashie and his wedges had not yet even been invented. I doubt he could putt on those greens anyway.

[9iron]

The field being deeper means everybody has improved? Isn't that what deeper fields mean? Everyone being better? Of course its the same thing.

And I can cherry pick guys of today, that's literally the whole argument. Because they've benefited from the training of today they're better. That's literally how they got better. Better strength training, better golf instruction, better mental instruction. Even throwing out the vastly deeper, more athletic talent pool.

Of course its an unfair comparison; that's why this argument is stupid. With all the benefits listed above (even factoring in the old equipment) how could they not be better? Truly. How could they not be better?

If those guys had had the training, maybe they would be as good. But they didn't. So they aren't. That's at least partially why.

If Tiger Woods played in jack's era with jack's equipment, would he have 18 majors? Maybe. Maybe not.

If Jack played today with today's modern equipment, would he have 14+ majors? Maybe. Maybe not.

There is simply no way of knowing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[jbishop15]

If Tiger Woods played in jack's era with jack's equipment, would he have 18 majors? Maybe. Maybe not.

If Jack played today with today's modern equipment, would he have 14+ majors? Maybe. Maybe not.

There is simply no way of knowing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

No, he would not have 18 majors. Everyone is better now. The odds of him winning 18 majors would be very low.

In terms of Tiger? I have no idea. Tiger's is about thirty times the athlete that Jack is or was. My guess? I think he'd be better than Jack.

[nick1998bunker]

The correct answer is that tiger was a better golfer by sheer ability. And by quite a large margin. However jack won more majors in his career. If that even means anything. I think pga your wins are more important and tigers past jack there. Or simply win to not win ratio, where tiger dominates. Like 26 percent

[tefunk]

No, he would not have 18 majors. Everyone is better now. The odds of him winning 18 majors would be very low.  In terms of Tiger? I have no idea. Tiger's is about thirty times the athlete that Jack is or was. My guess? I think he'd be better than Jack.

It's impossible for anyone to know how that would turn out. Btw, wasn't Nicklaus a stand out basketball and baseball player in high school as well? Did Woods ever play anything other than golf? So how could you possibly say Woods was/is a better athlete? I'm not saying he was or wasn't, but your making something a fact, that isn't necessarily fact.

[Golfingdad]

The field being deeper means everybody has improved? Isn't that what deeper fields mean? Everyone being better? Of course its the same thing.

No, that's not at all what it means.  It means that they are more tightly grouped together due to the fact that there are simply more of them playing.  As well as possibly other factors too - equipment, access to training, coaching, stuff like that.  But it doesn't at all mean that everybody is better, because if they were all better, then the depth would not change.  There would still be the same amount of possible winners, they'd just be winning with better scores.

And I can cherry pick guys of today, that's literally the whole argument. Because they've benefited from the training of today they're better. That's literally how they got better. Better strength training, better golf instruction, better mental instruction. Even throwing out the vastly deeper, more athletic talent pool.

What's the point of the discussion then if you're just going to say "today's players with today's resources are better than yesterday's players with yesterday's resources?"  Well, no shit.  The comparison can only be made relatively.  Is Tiger vs. his competition a greater champion than Jack vs. his competition?

Tiger's is about thirty times the athlete that Jack is or was.

Where do you get this one from??

[mmoan2]

No, he would not have 18 majors. Everyone is better now. The odds of him winning 18 majors would be very low.

In terms of Tiger? I have no idea. Tiger's is about thirty times the athlete that Jack is or was. My guess? I think he'd be better than Jack.

I agree that this is probably not true. I know plenty of buff dudes who aren't necessarily better athletes. Jack could've played D1 ball in three different sports, whereas I think I heard Notah Begay say one time that Tiger on the basketball court as a freshman at Stanford was laughable. I think Tiger was basically programmed at birth to be the greatest golfer of all time by Earl Woods. His natural coordination and athleticism let that happen, though that doesn't mean he's a better athlete than Jack was.

[mvmac]

You'll say it was easier. Lack of Depth. Today's players are better because more people play golf. But Jack still had to beat great players to win those events, and more of them than many of the majors won by Tiger. At the end of the day, you either won or you didn't win. Jack won 18 times. Tiger 14.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Jack beat great players, he just beat less of them than Tiger has.

Also, doesn't Tiger beating "non-great" players (Bob May, Chris DiMarco, Woody Austin, Rocco Mediate) illustrate the strength of the field during the Tiger era? Hope that makes sense, you asked about players coming out of nowhere.

And you can keep saying 18>14 all you want but there's just more to it than that.

[turtleback]

The strength of field argument needs a metric though.. Unless the tiger camp is willing to drop this part of the argument and look some where else.. Just like they don't like the 18>14 argument I am sure the jack side rolls their eyes every time the strength of field is brought up!

Not everything is accessible via numbers.  If someone comes up with an analysis that goes either way there will still be argument about the analysis.  Now you are certainly free to believe that the Jack era was a 25 year period of Hoosiers, but I'll put my faith in the conventional wisdom, that a field selected from 5000 players is very very likely to be tougher than one drawn from 500 players.

The debate over whether the strength of field is stronger now or then is just ludicrous to me. Look at literally any other sport, talk to anyone who played/plays/coaches baseball or basketball or football; they'll tell you the strength of field is a billion times better.

You make the mistake of looking at absolute performance levels when the conditions are not equal.  If you had the same exact players in the 1960-1990 period but they all had modern equipment and training methods THEN you could compare absolute performance levels.  But strength of field would not change because it is still the same guys.  If we believe Jack, his performance relative to the field would have gone down, because according to Jack the modern equipment closes the gap between the very good and the very best, making it harder for the best to separate themselves.

When we talk strength of field we are looking at the vastly larger pool from which the top echelon of golf is now drawn.  Jack did not have to worry about being beat by guys like YE Yang or Michael Campbell because those guys never would have even been in the events back in Jack's day.  You want to equalize?  On paper eliminate every player in Tiger's day who would have had virtually no chance of making it to the PGA in Jack's day and see how that would change the result.  That includes Yang and Campbell.  Playing against a Jack-level field Yang and Campbell wouldn't have even been there and Tiger's count would have been 2 higher.  And that is just off the top of my head.

Also, I will give you 10 American soccer players and their pool while I'll take 10 German players and tier pool and I will put your theory to test and see how that works out... ;). What do you think?

Think?  I think it is a silly argument because it ignores the place the sport has in each nation.  What percent play futbol in the US vs. Germany?  How important is futbol to Germans compared to Americans?  What sport do the best athletes in each country play?  Which country's players have the best access to excellent coaching?

If Tiger Woods played in jack's era with jack's equipment, would he have 18 majors? Maybe. Maybe not.

If Jack played today with today's modern equipment, would he have 14+ majors? Maybe. Maybe not.

There is simply no way of knowing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

No, but the guy you think is the best ever had a pretty strong opinion about this.  There may be no way of knowing, but there is lots to base an opinion on.