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

[dkolo]

The difference between us is that I'm not picking anyone as the best.  You can throw around all the stats you want, but the foundations they are based on are too far separated.  You can't say what one or the other might have accomplished if had Tiger come first, and Jack was in his prime now.  Jack didn't have the target that Tiger had, and despite some of the accusations bandied around here about his goals, he wasn't as consumed with golf as Tiger is.  Jack had a business to run, as well as family obligations that he actually took seriously.  Jack, despite his on course game face, also faithfully played in the big pro-am tournaments like the Crosby and the Gleason, which gave him at least the appearance of being more approachable.  Tiger has long since avoided playing in anything that might make him show a human side.

To me there is more than just numbers in the test of a player's worth, but if you want to use the numbers than you can't cherry pick them.  Those who back Tiger immediately poo-poo on Jack's 19 second place finishes in Majors.  I personally feel that they are significant in measuring his overall performance, how much he was in the hunt.  Jack also built part of his reputation on his "charge", coming from behind and trampling his competition as he passed them.  Tiger has a reputation as a front runner, but lacking the stuff to overtake a competitor.

All of these tangible and intangible factors weigh in to the final tally for me.  I was a Nicklaus fan and I was/am a Tiger fan.  I won't accept either one as the best ever (I really hate the acronym) unless Tiger affects a comeback and proves that he is better.  At the moment they are head to head, each with different stats factoring into the total, with enough unmeasurable or intangible or non-comparable achievements that it's just not possible for me to say that either one had the best career.

I've never understood the point of Tiger being a frontrunner as a negative. If you have to come from behind, you've been outplayed by others.

[turtleback]

"You choose not to. Others are capable of deciding for themselves even without the incredibly lazy artificial constraint that lets you not even think about it.

Yes, 18 > 14 or whatever is intellectually lazy IMO. Consider things. THINK a little. Decide. Why not?"

Of course I choose not to, because the equality of completion is not there. How in the world can it be intellectually lazy, your comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.Since apparently you didn't understand the analogy of the foot race, I'll afford you another example that may dis-wage your rather obtuse offering. Lets take base ball and the 56 game hitting streak. Since 56 is the bench mark, the same as 18 majors is the bench mark in golf, if a player only hits say 52 or even 54, is he or would he be considered just as good or better?

What a great way of destroying your own point.  Because NO ONE measures who is the greatest hitter using the criteria of who had the longest hitting streak.  Hell, the year DiMaggio did it he wasn't even the best hitter that year.  In his 56 game winning streak - he hit .408 (91 for 223) during the streak while Ted Williams hit .406 for the WHOLE FRIGGIN YEAR!!.

And YOU claim that majors is the benchmark, which is why you get the charges of laziness.  How about Vardons?  How about money titles?  Cut streaks?  Winning streaks?  Winning margin?  POY awards?  The fact is that once you get past the simplistic 18>14 there is almost nothing on Jack's side of the ledger.

How about dominance?  In how many years in his career was Jack the dominant player?  Not too many, if you look closely.  Jack was among the best 3-5 players for 20 years, but h was clearly the best player in less than half of them and dominant in no more than a half dozen or so,.  As compared to Tiger who was not only the best, but dominant to an extent never seen before or since in all but a couple of years ('98 and '04) up to 2008.

I'll tell you what - you put Jack's years in order from most dominant to least dominant.  I'll do the same for Tiger's years and we'll line them up in match play.

I'll save you the trouble - Jack loses 10 & 8.

I like "Fourputt's analogy of " You can compare stats all you like but it will always be an apple here and an orange there - maybe an occasional tangerine to make it even more confusing".  Let's make it double more confusing. Let's also throw a lemon into the mix. Both Jack, and Woody lost a formidable competitor in Tony Lema, and Payne Stewart due to plane crashes. It might be a stretch, but it might have been possible that Lema, and Stewart could have stolen a major or two from Jack, and/or Woody if they had played a full PGA career. Yes, this is another "what if", but again, who knows.

Personally I have always thought that Woody was robbed of playing against Stewart. I thought Stewart was damn fine golfer who could have been a better challenge to Woody than those he has faced regularly over the years. I know Stewart dressed for the game better than Woody did.

Bad analogy.  Payne died at age 42 in the twilight of his career.  He may have had a couple of years left but he was not going to spend the next 10 years fighting Tiger down the stretch.   OTOH, Lema died when he was 32 and just emerging as a star.  Lema had a whole lot of carer ahead of him when he dies than Payne did.

OK, this is actually very easy to disseminate. By Tiger's own admission, Jack's 18 majors was his main focal point. This was the "bar" if you will, that he wants to attain and in stipulating this, his own words dictate, that for him to consider himself "the best" or "better than" or any other descriptive verbiage one wished to put forth, this had / has to be obtained. Regardless of all the rhetoric that has transpired, the Jack and Tiger debate is all about the majors. For those disagree, well we'll just agree to disagree..........

Disseminate doesn't mean what you think it means.  I think you meant dispel.

IAC, your point is no better.  By Jack's own admission his goal was to be the best ever.  Unlike Tiger though, he constantly changed his definition of what it meant to be the best ever to suit how he was doing.  If you had bothered to read the thread you would have seen a series of statements made by Jack over the years where his definition of best ever wanders all over the map as one after another metric he suggests turns out to be beyond his reach,

He finally hit upon most majors as the one that counts AFTER he had already amassed the most.  Never mind the fact that every golfer who came before him had far fewer opportunities to even play in the majors, let alone win them.  But that's another set of messages in this thread that you did not read.

BTW, Jack's first cut at what it would take to be the greatest was that he had to win a grand slam.  Something he never did.  But something that Tiger has come the closest to and arguably, achieved.  But he came indisputably closer to the thing that JACK started out saying was the criteria.

BTW - everything I said here is documented in this thread.

I've never understood the point of Tiger being a frontrunner as a negative. If you have to come from behind, you've been outplayed by others.

I've never understood how it is that Jack could come from behind so many times, usually involving the collapse of one or more opponents along the way, when we are always told how he had to go against such fierce competitors as compared to Tiger.  The contradiction of these steely eyed competitors giving away majors to Jack is just remarkable.

But they think that by making this argument they are undervaluing Tiger, as if it is really a piece of cake to win an event after you have gotten the 54 hole lead.  While the truth is that it is damned hard to win even with the 54 hole lead.  Look at recent history - it is something like 8 or nine events in a row where the 54 hole leader did not close it out.  Yet Tiger has an other- worldly record when holding the 54 hole lead.  I would love to see a compilation of Tiger and Jack's respective winning percentages in events where each held the 54 hole lead.  Sight unseen I'd offer 3-1 odds that Tiger's is higher.  And even odds that it is at least double Jack's.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

"You choose not to. Others are capable of deciding for themselves even without the incredibly lazy artificial constraint that lets you not even think about it.

Yes, 18 > 14 or whatever is intellectually lazy IMO. Consider things. THINK a little. Decide. Why not?"

Of course I choose not to, because the equality of completion is not there. How in the world can it be intellectually lazy, your comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.Since apparently you didn't understand the analogy of the foot race, I'll afford you another example that may dis-wage your rather obtuse offering. Lets take base ball and the 56 game hitting streak. Since 56 is the bench mark, the same as 18 majors is the bench mark in golf, if a player only hits say 52 or even 54, is he or would he be considered just as good or better?

What a great way of destroying your own point.  Because NO ONE measures who is the greatest hitter using the criteria of who had the longest hitting streak.  Hell, the year DiMaggio did it he wasn't even the best hitter that year.  In his 56 game winning streak - he hit .408 (91 for 223) during the streak while Ted Williams hit .406 for the WHOLE FRIGGIN YEAR!!.

And YOU claim that majors is the benchmark, which is why you get the charges of laziness.  How about Vardons?  How about money titles?  Cut streaks?  Winning streaks?  Winning margin?  POY awards?  The fact is that once you get past the simplistic 18>14 there is almost nothing on Jack's side of the ledger.

How about dominance?  In how many years in his career was Jack the dominant player?  Not too many, if you look closely.  Jack was among the best 3-5 players for 20 years, but h was clearly the best player in less than half of them and dominant in no more than a half dozen or so,.  As compared to Tiger who was not only the best, but dominant to an extent never seen before or since in all but a couple of years ('98 and '04) up to 2008.

I'll tell you what - you put Jack's years in order from most dominant to least dominant.  I'll do the same for Tiger's years and we'll line them up in match play.

I'll save you the trouble - Jack loses 10 & 8.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

I like "Fourputt's analogy of " You can compare stats all you like but it will always be an apple here and an orange there - maybe an occasional tangerine to make it even more confusing".  Let's make it double more confusing. Let's also throw a lemon into the mix. Both Jack, and Woody lost a formidable competitor in Tony Lema, and Payne Stewart due to plane crashes. It might be a stretch, but it might have been possible that Lema, and Stewart could have stolen a major or two from Jack, and/or Woody if they had played a full PGA career. Yes, this is another "what if", but again, who knows.

Personally I have always thought that Woody was robbed of playing against Stewart. I thought Stewart was damn fine golfer who could have been a better challenge to Woody than those he has faced regularly over the years. I know Stewart dressed for the game better than Woody did.

Bad analogy.  Payne died at age 42 in the twilight of his career.  He may have had a couple of years left but he was not going to spend the next 10 years fighting Tiger down the stretch.   OTOH, Lema died when he was 32 and just emerging as a star.  Lema had a whole lot of carer ahead of him when he dies than Payne did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

OK, this is actually very easy to disseminate. By Tiger's own admission, Jack's 18 majors was his main focal point. This was the "bar" if you will, that he wants to attain and in stipulating this, his own words dictate, that for him to consider himself "the best" or "better than" or any other descriptive verbiage one wished to put forth, this had / has to be obtained. Regardless of all the rhetoric that has transpired, the Jack and Tiger debate is all about the majors. For those disagree, well we'll just agree to disagree..........

Disseminate doesn't mean what you think it means.  I think you meant dispel.

IAC, your point is no better.  By Jack's own admission his goal was to be the best ever.  Unlike Tiger though, he constantly changed his definition of what it meant to be the best ever to suit how he was doing.  If you had bothered to read the thread you would have seen a series of statements made by Jack over the years where his definition of best ever wanders all over the map as one after another metric he suggests turns out to be beyond his reach,

He finally hit upon most majors as the one that counts AFTER he had already amassed the most.  Never mind the fact that every golfer who came before him had far fewer opportunities to even play in the majors, let alone win them.  But that's another set of messages in this thread that you did not read.

BTW, Jack's first cut at what it would take to be the greatest was that he had to win a grand slam.  Something he never did.  But something that Tiger has come the closest to and arguably, achieved.  But he came indisputably closer to the thing that JACK started out saying was the criteria.

BTW - everything I said here is documented in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkolo

I've never understood the point of Tiger being a frontrunner as a negative. If you have to come from behind, you've been outplayed by others.

I've never understood how it is that Jack could come from behind so many times, usually involving the collapse of one or more opponents along the way, when we are always told how he had to go against such fierce competitors as compared to Tiger.  The contradiction of these steely eyed competitors giving away majors to Jack is just remarkable.

But they think that by making this argument they are undervaluing Tiger, as if it is really a piece of cake to win an event after you have gotten the 54 hole lead.  While the truth is that it is damned hard to win even with the 54 hole lead.  Look at recent history - it is something like 8 or nine events in a row where the 54 hole leader did not close it out.  Yet Tiger has an other- worldly record when holding the 54 hole lead.  I would love to see a compilation of Tiger and Jack's respective winning percentages in events where each held the 54 hole lead.  Sight unseen I'd offer 3-1 odds that Tiger's is higher.  And even odds that it is at least double Jack's.

The thing is, Jack did both.  He won with the lead and he won by coming from behind.  Tiger has never come from behind to win a major, while Jack did it 8 times.  If Tiger had shown just some of that sort of toughness, he'd have already passed Jack.  Jack won 10 of 12 when leading or tied after 54 holes, and won 8 coming from behind.

A couple more Tiger vs. Nicklaus stats:

Tiger has played 74 rounds at Augusta National and has a scoring average of 70.86, the best in history. That's more than one stroke better than Nicklaus' per-round average of 71.98. But consider: Nicklaus made 43 starts at the Masters over a span of nearly a half-century. Of his 163 rounds at the tournament, more than 40 were played after he turned 50 years old. That Nicklaus was able to keep his average under par for his career after playing so many non-competitive rounds is an underrated and remarkable achievement.

One more insane Nicklaus stat: From the 1970 British Open through the 1978 British Open, he finished in the top 10 in 31 of 33 majors. In the two in which he didn't, he tied for 11th and 13th.

There are so many comparisons like this one that can be made, yet those who are stuck on Tiger just blow them off, just like above where someone actually tries to convince us that it's more as compelling to hold a lead than it is to be able to overtake the leader in the final round.  I think it's more compelling to be able to do both.

[dkolo]

The thing is, Jack did both.  He won with the lead and he won by coming from behind.  Tiger has never come from behind to win a major, while Jack did it 8 times.  If Tiger had shown just some of that sort of toughness, he'd have already passed Jack.  Jack won 10 of 12 when leading or tied after 54 holes, and won 8 coming from behind.

A couple more Tiger vs. Nicklaus stats:

There are so many comparisons like this one that can be made, yet those who are stuck on Tiger just blow them off, just like above where someone actually tries to convince us that it's more as compelling to hold a lead than it is to be able to overtake the leader in the final round.  I think it's more compelling to be able to do both.

Come on, man, Tiger won the US Open in a 19 hole playoff on a broken leg. An argument questioning his "toughness" seems hard to swallow.

[disco111]

For turtleback "What a great way of destroying your own point.  Because NO ONE measures who is the greatest hitter using the criteria of who had the longest hitting streak.  Hell, the year DiMaggio did it he wasn't even the best hitter that year.  In his 56 game winning streak - he hit .408 (91 for 223) during the streak while Ted Williams hit .406 for the WHOLE FRIGGIN YEAR!!."

Didn't want to quote the entire post!.........

Using that analogy was perhaps misplaced, but and this is a rather large BUT.........nothing was said or even eluded to, about being the greatest hitter. The question was "if a player only hits say 52 or even 54, is he or would he be considered just as good or better?" The point being is that were talking a specific number. In golf it's 18, in baseball it's 56. Granted, the foundation aspects are different, one is only for a year and the other a lifetime, but were talking a specific number, nothing more. I do agree that I could have chosen a better analogy, but what's done is done. Now what I do find distasteful, is anyone putting words into something, that is clearly intention ed to bolster their own agenda and to discredit another and has absolutely no validation within the context of what was written.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The thing is, Jack did both.  He won with the lead and he won by coming from behind.  Tiger has never come from behind to win a major, while Jack did it 8 times.  If Tiger had shown just some of that sort of toughness, he'd have already passed Jack.  Jack won 10 of 12 when leading or tied after 54 holes, and won 8 coming from behind.

A couple more Tiger vs. Nicklaus stats:

There are so many comparisons like this one that can be made, yet those who are stuck on Tiger just blow them off, just like above where someone actually tries to convince us that it's more as compelling to hold a lead than it is to be able to overtake the leader in the final round.  I think it's more compelling to be able to do both.

Come on, man, Tiger won the US Open in a 19 hole playoff on a broken leg. An argument questioning his "toughness" seems hard to swallow.

All that is is pain tolerance.  Look, I said earlier I'm a Tiger Woods fan.  But I don't see him with blinders on like some of you seem to.  Nicklaus won three of his 4 US Opens in 18 hole playoffs (2 were come from behind and one he never trailed).  No he didn't do it on a bad leg.  For Tiger, that is a single tournament, and while laudatory, it isn't that significant in the bigger picture.

[billchao]

The difference between us is that I'm not picking anyone as the best.  You can throw around all the stats you want, but the foundations they are based on are too far separated.  You can't say what one or the other might have accomplished if had Tiger come first, and Jack was in his prime now.

Doesn't matter that you're not picking one over the other, but you're defending one while criticizing the other and we're having a discussion about it. Like I said, I'm not even talking about strength of field, equipment, or whatever, but Jack vs contemporaries and Tiger vs contemporaries, and Tiger is better in his era than Jack was during his. Tiger is more dominant than Jack ever was.

Jack didn't have the target that Tiger had, and despite some of the accusations bandied around here about his goals, he wasn't as consumed with golf as Tiger is.  Jack had a business to run, as well as family obligations that he actually took seriously.  Jack, despite his on course game face, also faithfully played in the big pro-am tournaments like the Crosby and the Gleason, which gave him at least the appearance of being more approachable.  Tiger has long since avoided playing in anything that might make him show a human side.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything or how you would be privy to both Jack's and Tiger's private lives/thoughts. Jack wanted to be the best, too, and Tiger being a philanderer doesn't mean he was a bad father.

To me there is more than just numbers in the test of a player's worth, but if you want to use the numbers than you can't cherry pick them.  Those who back Tiger immediately poo-poo on Jack's 19 second place finishes in Majors.  I personally feel that they are significant in measuring his overall performance, how much he was in the hunt.  Jack also built part of his reputation on his "charge", coming from behind and trampling his competition as he passed them.  Tiger has a reputation as a front runner, but lacking the stuff to overtake a competitor.

I didn't cherry pick any numbers. I took their careers and compared them side-by-side. I even tried to do it by eliminating all of the extra events of Jack's twilight years and comparing their accomplishments at the same age. I cherry picked the stats to make Jack look better, and Tiger still came out on top.

I chose to compare wins (and win %) because it's a relatively easy standard.

You know what cherry picking stats looks like? It's this:

Those who back Tiger immediately poo-poo on Jack's 19 second place finishes in Majors.  I personally feel that they are significant in measuring his overall performance, how much he was in the hunt.

And this:

One more insane Nicklaus stat: From the 1970 British Open through the 1978 British Open, he finished in the top 10 in 31 of 33 majors. In the two in which he didn't, he tied for 11th and 13th.

But here, I'll add another cherry picked stat:

Tiger Woods career line, top 3 finishes: 79, 29, 19 (39.9% for his entire career)

Jack Nicklaus, top 3 finishes, only through the 1986 season because that's the last time he won: 73, 58, 34 (35.2%, out of only 469 of his 595 tournament appearances)

They're closer now

All of these tangible and intangible factors weigh in to the final tally for me.  I was a Nicklaus fan and I was/am a Tiger fan.  I won't accept either one as the best ever (I really hate the acronym) unless Tiger affects a comeback and proves that he is better.  At the moment they are head to head, each with different stats factoring into the total, with enough unmeasurable or intangible or non-comparable achievements that it's just not possible for me to say that either one had the best career.

I don't know what to say about this. If you want to evaluate them based on how well-rounded they are, you're entitled to that. I don't, and I won't. I like Tiger better because he's half-Asian.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

All of these tangible and intangible factors weigh in to the final tally for me.  I was a Nicklaus fan and I was/am a Tiger fan.  I won't accept either one as the best ever (I really hate the acronym) unless Tiger affects a comeback and proves that he is better.  At the moment they are head to head, each with different stats factoring into the total, with enough unmeasurable or intangible or non-comparable achievements that it's just not possible for me to say that either one had the best career.

I don't know what to say about this. If you want to evaluate them based on how well-rounded they are, you're entitled to that. I don't, and I won't. I like Tiger better because he's half-Asian.

And here we have it.  I'll go with the WASP.

[jamo]

Jack's achievements in majors is far superior to Tiger's.  First Place Jack 18     Tiger 14 2nd Place Jack 19     Tiger 6 Top 5 Jack 56     Tiger 31 (Jack has almost twice as many top 5's) Top 10 Jack 73     Tiger 38 (Jack has almost twice as many top 10's too, Sam Snead had 48 top 10's despite not playing in about 25% of the events during his prime)

You're right! Jack was excellent at losing.

[Fourputt]

You're right! Jack was excellent at losing.

Well thought out comment... very insightful

[jamo]

Well thought out comment... very insightful :no:

I'm just reiterating what 9iron was saying. Jack Nicklaus was very, very good at losing.

[Patch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9iron

Jack's achievements in majors is far superior to Tiger's.

First Place

Jack 18     Tiger 14

2nd Place

Jack 19     Tiger 6

Top 5

Jack 56     Tiger 31 (Jack has almost twice as many top 5's)

Top 10

Jack 73     Tiger 38 (Jack has almost twice as many top 10's too, Sam Snead had 48 top 10's despite not playing in about 25% of the events during his prime)

You're right! Jack was excellent at losing.

On the flip side it could also mean Jack had tougher competition. There was more parity in his era of golf. That poor dead horse is still being beaten.

[jbishop15]

The idea of Jack having tougher competition that Tiger is just so ludicrous to me. Do you think that the NBA players of the 1970's could hang with the players of today? The baseball players? The football players?

I mean, come on.

[turtleback]

All that is is pain tolerance.  Look, I said earlier I'm a Tiger Woods fan.  But I don't see him with blinders on like some of you seem to.  Nicklaus won three of his 4 US Opens in 18 hole playoffs (2 were come from behind and one he never trailed).  No he didn't do it on a bad leg.  For Tiger, that is a single tournament, and while laudatory, it isn't that significant in the bigger picture.

The difference between us is that I'm not picking anyone as the best.

This would all be a lot more convincing (your act about there not being a goat, and yu cannot compare players across eras, etc.) if every single point you make in the discussion was not pro-Jack and anti-Tiger.

For turtleback "What a great way of destroying your own point.  Because NO ONE measures who is the greatest hitter using the criteria of who had the longest hitting streak.  Hell, the year DiMaggio did it he wasn't even the best hitter that year.  In his 56 game winning streak - he hit .408 (91 for 223) during the streak while Ted Williams hit .406 for the WHOLE FRIGGIN YEAR!!."

Didn't want to quote the entire post!.........

Using that analogy was perhaps misplaced, but and this is a rather large BUT.........nothing was said or even eluded to, about being the greatest hitter. The question was "if a player only hits say 52 or even 54, is he or would he be considered just as good or better?" The point being is that were talking a specific number. In golf it's 18, in baseball it's 56. Granted, the foundation aspects are different, one is only for a year and the other a lifetime, but were talking a specific number, nothing more. I do agree that I could have chosen a better analogy, but what's done is done. Now what I do find distasteful, is anyone putting words into something, that is clearly intention ed to bolster their own agenda and to discredit another and has absolutely no validation within the context of what was written.

No your BUT is not important.  Because the issue is using a ridiculous metric, which is what you did with 56 and what people do with 18>14.  Who is the greatest or which is best is just playing with semantics.  You are claiming that the number of games in a consecutive hitting trek is a reasonable way of comparing players and I say that is ABSURD.  There is no magic about 56.  There is no magic about 18.

The very fact that you are talking about a "single number" is what makes your point absurd and it really doesn't matter if you pick a good number or a terrible one (as you did).  Did that 56 game winning streak make DiMaggio the best hitter in 1941?  Hardly.  Ted Williams had a better season by every other measure.

DiMaggio hit .408 DURING the streak - Williams hit ,406 for the WHOLE YEAR.  (Dimaggio hit ,353 for the year)

DiMaggio had a slugging percentage of .717 DURING the streak - Williams had a slugging percentage of .735 for the WHOLE YEAR (Dimaggio had a slugging percentage of .643)

For the year Williams beat Dimaggio in almost every offensive category.

This is actually a great analogy to the Tiger/Jack debate.  On one side you have almost every statistical advantage and on the other side you have a mythical number that is a lousy metric.

And the real point is that trying to use a single number to compare two people over the course of a golf career or even over the course of a single baseball season is ridiculous.  THAT is the point.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

All that is is pain tolerance.  Look, I said earlier I'm a Tiger Woods fan.  But I don't see him with blinders on like some of you seem to.  Nicklaus won three of his 4 US Opens in 18 hole playoffs (2 were come from behind and one he never trailed).  No he didn't do it on a bad leg.  For Tiger, that is a single tournament, and while laudatory, it isn't that significant in the bigger picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The difference between us is that I'm not picking anyone as the best.

This would all be a lot more convincing (your act about there not being a goat, and yu cannot compare players across eras, etc.) if every single point you make in the discussion was not pro-Jack and anti-Tiger.

It's called supporting the underdog, and Jack is clearly the underdog in this discussion.  I don't have to reiterate Tigers record, the rest of you are doing that ad nauseum.

Tiger has the most Tour wins, Jack has the most majors.  Tiger faced a tougher top 20, but I think Jack faced a tougher top 5.  Tiger has a slightly better scoring average than Jack, but since they played very different equipment on different courses, that's mostly a wash for me.  The differences in their careers are significant enough that real comparison is difficult, and I can't make an honest choice between them.

That is why I'm willing to defer until Tiger is truly finished.  If nothing has changed, then I'll have a hard time of it.  If Tiger comes back in reasonable health and plays well, he could definitely tip the scales for me, even if he never catches Jack for major wins.

[disco111]

The very fact that you are talking about a "single number" is what makes your point absurd and it really doesn't matter if you pick a good number or a terrible one (as you did).  Did that 56 game winning streak make DiMaggio the best hitter in 1941?  Hardly.  Ted Williams had a better season by every other measure.

I'm sorry, but just what part of my previous post, where NOTHING was remotely said about Joe D being the best hitter, did you not understand? The " mythical number" that your eluding to in golf is 18. Now I didn't conjure up this number, but it's the number that the golfing world has registered as the benchmark. The same can be said for the 56 game hitting streak. It's nothing more than a target number and that was the initial focal point of the post. Whether you consider that viable for your own edification is irrelevant. You don't like the analogy, fine, but don't be so presumptuous as to change what I said and then find fault with it, just to justify your rebuttal.

[Ernest Jones]

The very fact that you are talking about a "single number" is what makes your point absurd and it really doesn't matter if you pick a good number or a terrible one (as you did).  Did that 56 game winning streak make DiMaggio the best hitter in 1941?  Hardly.  Ted Williams had a better season by every other measure.

I'm sorry, but just what part of my previous post, where NOTHING was remotely said about Joe D being the best hitter, did you not understand? The "mythical number" that your eluding to in golf is 18. Now I didn't conjure up this number, but it's the number that the golfing world has registered as the benchmark. The same can be said for the 56 game hitting streak. It's nothing more than a target number and that was the initial focal point of the post. Whether you consider that viable for your own edification is irrelevant. You don't like the analogy, fine, but don't be so presumptuous as to change what I said and then find fault with it, just to justify your rebuttal.

You really need to start using the quote button @disco111 Without it you just look like your ranting at nobody in particular.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

I'm sorry, but just what part of my previous post, where NOTHING was remotely said about Joe D being the best hitter, did you not understand? The " mythical number" that your eluding to in golf is 18. Now I didn't conjure up this number, but it's the number that the golfing world has registered as the benchmark. The same can be said for the 56 game hitting streak. It's nothing more than a target number and that was the initial focal point of the post. Whether you consider that viable for your own edification is irrelevant. You don't like the analogy, fine, but don't be so presumptuous as to change what I said and then find fault with it, just to justify your rebuttal.

Do not play sophistry with me.

You wrote:

Quote:

Lets take base ball and the 56 game hitting streak. Since 56 is the bench mark, the same as 18 majors is the bench mark in golf, if a player only hits say 52 or even 54, is he or would he be considered just as good or better ?

Clearly you are comparing 2 things and clearly you are implying that the single number is being used to decide between them.  It is an absurd argument yet ironically it is a right on analogy to the Tiger Jack discussion.,  A single number is asserted as the "benchmark" as you call it.  You ASSUMED the very thing that we are discussing.  56 is NOT the benchmark for anything other than consecutive game hitting streaks.  It is not some kind of benchmark for anything else.

You also wrote:

Quote:

By Tiger's own admission, Jack's 18 majors was his main focal point.

as if somehow this clinches things, yet where do you apply the same standard to JACK'S main focal points along HIS career.

Initially Jack said to be considered the best he had to win an amateur grand slam to match his hero, Bobby Jones, because he was contemplating staying an amateur..  He never did it

Then when he decided to go pro and that was no longer possible, he decided that to be considered the GOAT he would have to win the most tournaments and break Snead's record.  He never did it (but Tiger came a lot closer and may yet do it.) Advantage Tiger

Then when he realized that he was never going to win more times than Snead  he changed YET AGAIN and decided that since Hogan won 3 majors in a row the way to become the GOAT was to win a professional Grand Slam.  He never did it.  (But Tiger came way closer by winning 4 majors in a row)  Advantage Tiger

Then when he realized that he was not going to win a Grand Slam he made the big switch to most majors AFTER he he already had the most majors with one of the most self serving and unfair statements ever made about comparing players:

"Money changes.  You can't use that to compare.  The only fair, adequate way to compare a player of one era against a player of another is his record in the major championships."

Stop and consider this a moment.  Up to that point, no golfer in history had the opportunity to play in more majors than Jack.  Players in other eras did NOT have the same opportunities for a variety of reasons - the major did not exist (Masters), the majors were not held because of war, it was far more costly in both time and money for players on one side of the Atlantic to regularly play on the other side's majors (and let's not forget that majors were even taken away from earlier era players - Hagen won a number of Western Opens, which was considered a major at the time)    Jack was the first player to routinely play all four majors every year and even planned his schedule around them.

So given the twists and turns Jack had to take to get the golf word to acclaim him GOAT I would think that Tiger would get brownie points for maintaining is original goal.  If Tiger played the GOAT game like Jack did we would be hearing that the only fair way to compare golfers of different eras is their record in events in which at least 90% of the best players in the world competed and therefore Tiger wins because 34 (14 majors, 18 WGCs, 2 Players) is greater than 21 (1 majors and 3 Players).  THAT is just as good, if not better, than the one Jack proposed.

BTW, you did not have to read the whole thread to see this all laid out, it was less than 100 posts upstream, just a page or two back, in message #4684.

You might also consider the inconvenient truth that Jack Nicklaus is the only player in the history of golf who has ever been considered the GOAT because he won the most majors.  Prior to him Hagen had the most majors yet in most discussions of GOAT he would be behind AT LEAST Jones (for the sentimentalists), Hogan, and Snead.  So we have this great benchmark of 18 yet it has only been applied to one person in the whole history of golf?  That sounds fair.