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

[saevel25]

12 hours ago, Used to Be a 3 said:

If longevity doesn't matter AT ALL, then couldn't the GOAT merely be the person who played the greatest in the biggest moment at a single point in time?

I think you are taking that longevity statement too literal and extreme. That isn't how longevity is being used to say Jack is greater than Tiger.

If a golfer today  won 16 majors in a 6 year span and had the highest winning percentage of any golfer ever during that timeframe. I would say he's the greatest of all time. Jack had a 25 year career (first major to his last major). I don't think that longevity should play a part if a person is able to do nearly what he did, against much stronger competition, in a much shorter timeframe.

25 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Again though, it is hard to compare era's due exactly to the point you make about international players and travel. Who is to say what Bobby Jones could have done if playing golf was a "respectable" career, or Sam Snead look at the events not played due to WWII and if he wasn't hustling (playing money games and exhibitions)  to make more money than he did in PGA events.

You can't stand back and say, "What if". If you are looking at the ceiling a player could have had, then fine. If you are looking at the greatest player of all time. It's what actually happened, not what could have happened. Sorry for Jack, but he played against much weaker competition. 

Note, I am not talking about the other great players he played against, but the entire field of the tournaments.  .

25 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Certainly the competition is much deeper today, primarily because there is so much money available - prize money & endorsements. There is no doubt that Tiger had the best 10+ years on the PGA tour, but IMO it is very hard to compare era's

Not really. The number of quality of golfers today is so far beyond than what Jack had to deal with it isn't hard to compare.

 

 

[Used to Be a 3]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I think you are taking that longevity statement too literal and extreme. That isn't how longevity is being used to say Jack is greater than Tiger.

I'm just trying to flesh out what he said.  Yes, absolutely taking it to the extreme to determine what he really means.  I'm a lawyer by training and have taught the stuff full time for the last 10 years, so it's kind of a quirk of mine--words matter, I want to know what people mean by them, to see if they've thought through the implications.  

When he said that longevity is irrelevant, which is the only way I can interpret a statement that it doesn't matter at all, is he suggesting we limit the range of career that we analyze to determine the GOAT?  If so, what limit would he or you or anyone suggest?   Because any cut off is going to be somewhat arbitrary.  Should it be 5 years? 10? 15? 20? 25?  How about 1 year?  1 tournament?  1 shot? 

Any time one proposes a cut off when defining GOAT, as opposed to the definition of peak performance, it's going to be an arbitrary measure.  One of the issues I have with Tiger proponents for GOAT is they often want to compare Tiger's peak winning years with Jack's entire career, and claim his majors were won over a 24 year span, while Tiger's only over 11.  

Woods won 14 majors in a span of 11 years, and that was it; Nicklaus won 14 majors in a span of 13 years--and then won 3 more over the next 5 years, and then that one glorious Masters in '86 6 years after.  Those are pretty similar careers in terms of how densely they won majors at their respective peaks, with Woods getting a slight edge, but then Nicklaus went on and on, Woods didn't.  That's why I favor Jack.  That and the irrefutable fact that 18 is more than 14. 

[Used to Be a 3]

27 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You can't stand back and say, "What if". If you are looking at the ceiling a player could have had, then fine. If you are looking at the greatest player of all time. It's what actually happened, not what could have happened. Sorry for Jack, but he played against much weaker competition.

The fields might have be weaker overall (though I haven't seen evidence for that, so don't accept it as a fait accompli), but as you concede, the players who were regularly in contention for majors were certainly great in Jack's era.  And those are almost exclusively the players who are relevant in terms of competition in any analysis of GOAT.  Jack Nicklaus didn't compete against a handful of rich people and hard-drinking former caddies hanging around St. Andrews clubhouse, Jack is not Old Tom Morris winning majors against a group made up largely of locals, he competed during the boom era of golf, when it was an enormously popular sport than made people very wealthy and was extremely attractive to top athletes--and many thousands flocked into it and the competition was fierce.  I remember, I was there, and based on my purely anecdotal experience since I took the game up again three months ago after 20 years off, the courses were more packed back in the 70s, 80s and 90s.  Just sayin. 

There were more people in that era racking up significant majors than today, I think the competition for majors was stronger for Jack than for Tiger.  Tiger had to contend with a lot of great players, he didn't have to contend with many immortals, like Player, Palmer, Trevino, Watson.  Tiger had to deal with Mickelson, five majors.  Anyone else in this era other than those two rack up careers like that comparable to those in Jack's era?

Honestly, I believe the "what if" refrain is more the province of the Tiger supporters, i.e., "What if he hadn't catted around on his wife and had the big blow up...what if he hadn't stressed the back so much until it started to break down...maybe he'd have won more majors and surpassed Jack."  I really think the best argument for Tiger as GOAT has to be based on "What if?"

[saevel25]

12 minutes ago, Used to Be a 3 said:

Should it be 5 years? 10? 15? 20? 25?  How about 1 year?  1 tournament?  1 shot? 

Depends on the accomplishments.

Since the criteria for greatest golfer of all time is typically Majors won and Tournaments won. There is the constraint of time here. Obviously a golfer can not win 18 majors in one year.

People will always make the argument that longevity matters. Jack accomplished his over a 25 year span. Like somehow giving Jack more chances to win a major is more impressive than winning more majors in a shorter timeframe.

5 minutes ago, Used to Be a 3 said:

The fields might have be weaker overall (though I haven't seen evidence for that, so don't accept it as a fait accompli), but as you concede, the players who were regularly in contention for majors were certainly great in Jack's era. 

I use the word great to be polite to those who have an hyper sense of nostalgia for those golfers. I personally think that many of them would not have the distinguished careers they had if they played against today's competition. They would have good careers, but probably not great careers.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

Who is to say what Bobby Jones could have done if playing golf was a "respectable" career, or Sam Snead look at the events not played due to WWII and if he wasn't hustling (playing money games and exhibitions)  to make more money than he did in PGA events.

 But they didn’t. Who’s to say what Tiger would’ve done had he never had an injury?

Tiger the GOAT.

[Used to Be a 3]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Depends on the accomplishments.

Since the criteria for greatest golfer of all time is typically Majors won and Tournaments won. There is the constraint of time here. Obviously a golfer can not win 18 majors in one year.

People will always make the argument that longevity matters. Jack accomplished his over a 25 year span. Like somehow giving Jack more chances to win a major is more impressive than winning more majors in a shorter timeframe.

I use the word great to be polite to those who have an hyper sense of nostalgia for those golfers. I personally think that many of them would not have the distinguished careers they had if they played against today's competition. They would have good careers, but probably not great careers.

We're just going to disagree on that one.  I think there are many great golfers today, but not many immortal golfers.  I don't see the evidence of it: Tiger and Phil and Rory (who's getting close) belong on the platform with Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Hogan, Snead, but not a lot of others.  Who else would you put there?  All the top 20 ranked in the world because they're just all so good?  Who?  Golf is not better just because the calendar says 2018 and not 1978.

I can find a bit of evidence to support my point: a 59 year old Tom Watson, more than a quarter of a century past his prime, very nearly (but for a bit too much adrenaline on that final approach at 18) won the British Open against a modern field of golfers who were supposedly so much better than those old fogies in the 60s, 70s and 80s.  That wasn't a fluke, it was a sign, if this current generation would acknowledge it, that they may not be as great as they think. 

One thing I've learned over time is that things do not always progress in a linear, upward manner.  We are not perpetually riding the peak of the wave of science and knowledge and competence and technology and greatness.  Things go up, they go down.  Knowledge is gained, it's lost.

Sure, modern training techniques and diet help, technology helps.  I can say, as a "time traveler" from the past (just took up the game after a two decade layoff, I played 90% of my golf in the 1980s), that these new golf spikes are making the greens roll more true around the hole (things used to get spiked up terribly back in the day) and that drivers go farther (I hit the ball farther now than I did when in my 20s, even after the long layoff and with all the rust) and the balls might be better, but that doesn't mean golf is much better or that 30, 40, 50 years ago that only a bunch of unathletic nobodies and privileged rich kids took up golf.  Golf has been a major sport for a long time.  Those "nostalgic" guys would come back and snatch majors away from Tiger, Phil, Rory, Spieth.  And they'd hit it a ton and make more putts with the modern tech.  Absolutely.

18 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

 But they didn’t. Who’s to say what Tiger would’ve done had he never had an injury?

Tiger the GOAT.

For peak year or five years, absolutely, for whole career, it's Jack.  Depends on how you define "GOAT".  Remember, Jack just didn't lazily rack up those majors, he got 14 in just a little longer span of time than Tiger got his 14: 13 years versus 11.  But Jack went on and kept racking them up.  And he had 19 seconds in majors.  

Again, for absolute peak over a year, it's Tiger in 2000-2001, no argument.  But for overall career, Jack.

[Vinsk]

29 minutes ago, Used to Be a 3 said:

We're just going to disagree on that one.  I think there are many great golfers today, but not many immortal golfers.  I don't see the evidence of it: Tiger and Phil and Rory (who's getting close) belong on the platform with Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Hogan, Snead, but not a lot of others.  Who else would you put there?  All the top 20 ranked in the world because they're just all so good?  Who?  Golf is not better just because the calendar says 2018 and not 1978.

I can find a bit of evidence to support my point: a 59 year old Tom Watson, more than a quarter of a century past his prime, very nearly (but for a bit too much adrenaline on that final approach at 18) won the British Open against a modern field of golfers who were supposedly so much better than those old fogies in the 60s, 70s and 80s.  That wasn't a fluke, it was a sign, if this current generation would acknowledge it, that they may not be as great as they think. 

One thing I've learned over time is that things do not always progress in a linear, upward manner.  We are not perpetually riding the peak of the wave of science and knowledge and competence and technology and greatness.  Things go up, they go down.  Knowledge is gained, it's lost.

Sure, modern training techniques and diet help, technology helps.  I can say, as a "time traveler" from the past (just took up the game after a two decade layoff, I played 90% of my golf in the 1980s), that these new golf spikes are making the greens roll more true around the hole (things used to get spiked up terribly back in the day) and that drivers go farther (I hit the ball farther now than I did when in my 20s, even after the long layoff and with all the rust) and the balls might be better, but that doesn't mean golf is much better or that 30, 40, 50 years ago that only a bunch of unathletic nobodies and privileged rich kids took up golf.  Golf has been a major sport for a long time.  Those "nostalgic" guys would come back and snatch majors away from Tiger, Phil, Rory, Spieth.  And they'd hit it a ton and make more putts with the modern tech.  Absolutely.

For peak year or five years, absolutely, for whole career, it's Jack.  Depends on how you define "GOAT".  Remember, Jack just didn't lazily rack up those majors, he got 14 in just a little longer span of time than Tiger got his 14: 13 years versus 11.  But Jack went on and kept racking them up.  And he had 19 seconds in majors.  

Again, for absolute peak over a year, it's Tiger in 2000-2001, no argument.  But for overall career, Jack.

Yeah we’re just gonna disagree on this. As I said, Jack had multiple Major wins that were against a very shallow field. Jack was an awesome player obviously. But he didn’t come out and dominate the field and win by 8-15 strokes, make shots never before seen, have the USGA making changes to golf courses due to his inhuman abilities. What I’m saying is the primary factor people hold over Jack vs Tiger is the 18 majors. But Jack was faced with much less competition than Tiger was for a good chunk of his early wins. It’s similar to discussing NCAA football. UCF went 13-0. They’re season however is not as impressive as a team who lost 2 games but beat 5 top 10 teams. UCF won more games but those wins simply don’t hold as much value. Hell Jack was competing against club pros in many of his tournaments.

[Used to Be a 3]

Without more evidence, I just don't see how the fields were "very shallow".  I hear that refrain, but I don't see the proof behind it.  And even if the overall fields were more shallow (which I'm not conceding), the relevant comparison is with top golfers competing for the majors.  Player, Palmer, Watson, Trevino versus Mickelson, McElroy, Spieth.  Frankly, I take that back, Tiger himself is a thing of the past, he wasn't competing against Rory or Spieth for those majors.  His competition was Vijay, Ernie and Phil. 

To make the point you're making, you have to stand by the statement that Singh, Mickleson and Els, Tiger's greatest competition for majors during that historic 11 year run, are greater than the combo platter of Watson, Palmer, Trevino and Player.  I just do not agree in any way.  Tiger won tournaments by a lot, sure, but you can make the argument that in his prime there were very few great golfers to snatch those tournaments away.  The new crop is better than the competition 10, 20 years ago, as was the crop of golfers from the 60s to 80s.  

Just my take.

[saevel25]

54 minutes ago, Used to Be a 3 said:

  Golf is not better just because the calendar says 2018 and not 1978.

Here are advantages golfers today have over Jack's era,
1. Better made equipment
2. Club fitting
3. Video Swing Analysis
4. 30+ years of nutritional and sports science development.
5. Larger money, and sponsors that let them focus their time on golf rather than other issues.

Again, the argument can not be made, "What if Jack had all of these." He didn't.

59 minutes ago, Used to Be a 3 said:

I can find a bit of evidence to support my point: a 59 year old Tom Watson, more than a quarter of a century past his prime, very nearly (but for a bit too much adrenaline on that final approach at 18) won the British Open against a modern field of golfers who were supposedly so much better than those old fogies in the 60s, 70s and 80s. 

The Open is almost a gimmicky Major depending on the course. Tom Watson has won 5 of them. He clearly knows how to win them. That is an outlier case.

Heck, Ben Crane won a The Open.

1 hour ago, Used to Be a 3 said:

For peak year or five years, absolutely, for whole career, it's Jack.  Depends on how you define "GOAT".  Remember, Jack just didn't lazily rack up those majors, he got 14 in just a little longer span of time than Tiger got his 14: 13 years versus 11.  But Jack went on and kept racking them up.  And he had 19 seconds in majors.  

Again, for absolute peak over a year, it's Tiger in 2000-2001, no argument.  But for overall career, Jack.

Longevity doesn't mean it was more impressive. It just mean he got had a few extra shots at winning majors. A few extra lucky breaks to go his way. If you play enough tournaments you might just win a few.

Just some things Tiger did better than Jack
1. He averaged nearly 2 strokes more in margin of victory in Majors versus Jack.
2. He had 37 more tournaments in a row were he didn't miss a cut. (142 versus 105)
3. Tiger averaged over 20% win percentage 12 times. Jack only averaged over 20% win percentage 7 times.
4. Jack lead the Tour in scoring average 8 times, Tiger lead the Tour in scoring average 9 times.

Tiger was more dominant in the 22 years in which he was making PGA tour starts versus Jacks first 22 years. The only argument anyone has is majors. Jack won 17 majors in his first 22 years and Tiger won 14. Besides that, Tiger had a more impressive career.

 

[Mr. Desmond]

Jack is a legend, and Tiger is still playing.

Jury is still out, BUT it's tough to beat Tiger's dominance of the tour from '97-'08.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Mr. Desmond

[Vinsk]

@Used to Be a 3 also remember that it’s not just Phil, Vijay and Els. In 2013 we had DJ, Stenson, Spieth, Scott, Kuchar to name A FEW. Tiger won 5 times that year.

[iacas]

@Used to Be a 3, 1/3 of the field in Jack’s day was club pros. Ask @Phil McGleno. The other names you mentioned ALSO benefited from the weak fields.

Back then 10-20 people could win majors. Now 100 can.

Jack played against significantly weaker fields than Tiger did, and those are even a bit weaker than the current era ones.

[Used to Be a 3]

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Used to Be a 3, 1/3 of the field in Jack’s day was club pros. Ask @Phil McGleno. The other names you mentioned ALSO benefited from the weak fields.

Back then 10-20 people could win majors. Now 100 can.

 

The bottom one third of the field is pretty irrelevant for major championship consideration except in extremely unusual circumstances. e.g., Micheel, Sluman, Fleck (though that might not be fair to any of them, as none of them were truly bottom third).  And the fact is somewhat misleading, because in the early years of Jack's reign at least, even though the life of the tour pro was pretty attractive, a lot of pretty good players had to be club pros in the offseason to make a living.  By the 1970s, Jack's heyday, top golfers were getting quite rich on tour, so it wasn't as necessary.  But in any event, Nicklaus wasn't competing against those players often for major championships, the handful of ones against whom he had to compete were, in my opinion, better than the fields against whom Tiger competed in his prime, unless you want to place Els, Vijay, Phil, Padraig, Payne Stewart, et. al. over Player, Trevino, Watson, Palmer, Ballesteros, et. al.  I don't know, it's sure not a clear choice for Tiger. 

100 players can win a major now?  Sincerely doubt it--physically, yes, psychologically, no. But Tiger's reign isn't now, it was 10-20 years ago, that's the relevant comparison (as you allude to elsewhere in your post).  In Nicklaus's era (62-86), 46 different golfers won majors, in Woods's era (97-08), 25 different players won majors. I know Nicklaus had a span of 25=/- and Woods a span of 12+/-, but dang, that's a pretty close ratio.   If all those golfers could win majors in Woods's era, there sure didn't prove it on the course--and that wasn't just because of Tiger, he didn't win most of the majors even during that great run.

Let's leave it at this: No one knows, and no one can ever know for certain.  If we had omnipotent powers and could bring all the 100+ major winners forward into time at their absolute primes, from Old Tom Morris right up to Justin Thomas, maybe throwing in Moe Norman for good measure, and gave the old timers a year to hone their craft with the new tech and catch up on the nutrition and conditioning that's been developed in the last century and a half and set up a super tour for the next 20 years, I doubt it'd be a clear cut thing. There'd quite probably be one person who had the lowest round, another with the lowest tournament, another with the top money-winning year, another with the best five year run, another with the longest streak, another with the most wins, and another with the most majors--and we'd be right back where we started arguing all over again who's the GOAT .

[Used to Be a 3]

6 hours ago, saevel25 said:

The Open is almost a gimmicky Major depending on the course. Tom Watson has won 5 of them. He clearly knows how to win them. That is an outlier case.

 

Sure he knows how to win them, that's the point, knowing how to win several major championships, very special and extraordinary thing.  And against remarkable competition, 100 players could win it, Tom Watson, nearly old enough for social security, a nostalgic relic, came one adrenaline-aided airmailed green from winning it against many who weren't even alive when he was in his prime.  Sure Watson's situation is an outlier, he is an outlier himself--as is Nicklaus.  There's my point.   

But better be careful calling The Open "gimmicky", we have some members here from the UK, "them's fightin' words", as they say down where I live.

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, Used to Be a 3 said:

Let's leave it at this: No one knows, and no one can ever know for certain

Nah. One can easily make a case for the strength of field today.

And that case has been made multiple times in 280+ pages.

So pardon me if I’m not going to do it again. I disagree quite strongly with some of your assumptions, and think you’re giving a very glossy shine to the olden days.

[Wally Fairway]

8 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Yeah we’re just gonna disagree on this. As I said, Jack had multiple Major wins that were against a very shallow field. Jack was an awesome player obviously. But he didn’t come out and dominate the field and win by 8-15 strokes, make shots never before seen, have the USGA making changes to golf courses due to his inhuman abilities. What I’m saying is the primary factor people hold over Jack vs Tiger is the 18 majors. But Jack was faced with much less competition than Tiger was for a good chunk of his early wins. It’s similar to discussing NCAA football. UCF went 13-0. They’re season however is not as impressive as a team who lost 2 games but beat 5 top 10 teams. UCF won more games but those wins simply don’t hold as much value. Hell Jack was competing against club pros in many of his tournaments.

I'm not an 18 > 14 guy, I think there is more the story a binary choice of win or lose.

Look at records in majors, wins, seconds, top tens; Jack has a clear advantage, but Tiger was very injury plagued so as you say who knows what Tiger could have done if he had been healthy. He wasn't healthy for much of the time, and still he was very competitive even after 2008, winning tournament but not majors.

I seems to me like some people like to cherry pick the stats that favor the player they are trying to make the case for being GOAT; it is like trying to get a definitive answer to who is the greatest basketball, baseball, hockey player (or pick your other favorite sport). There are facts and stats that can be interpreted to support either side of the discussion.

And yet this thread will continue, a) because new posters will join TST (a good thing) but not read much of the history of this thread and think that they are making a new point and b) long-time posters will continue to make their point of view known. I'm thinking we can go over 300 pages sometime in 2018!

[Vinsk]

On 1/15/2018 at 8:53 PM, Wally Fairway said:

I'm not an 18 > 14 guy, I think there is more the story a binary choice of win or lose.

Look at records in majors, wins, seconds, top tens; Jack has a clear advantage, but Tiger was very injury plagued so as you say who knows what Tiger could have done if he had been healthy. He wasn't healthy for much of the time, and still he was very competitive even after 2008, winning tournament but not majors.

I seems to me like some people like to cherry pick the stats that favor the player they are trying to make the case for being GOAT; it is like trying to get a definitive answer to who is the greatest basketball, baseball, hockey player (or pick your other favorite sport). There are facts and stats that can be interpreted to support either side of the discussion.

And yet this thread will continue, a) because new posters will join TST (a good thing) but not read much of the history of this thread and think that they are making a new point and b) long-time posters will continue to make their point of view known. I'm thinking we can go over 300 pages sometime in 2018!

Yes this is all true. I just feel Tiger was a more 'amazing' player than Jack ever was. I grew up watching Jack and have always been a big fan of his. Tiger was more explosive, a much better short game player, and well, he just dominated the fields where Jack just stayed smooth and consistent and carved out his victories. Jacks '86 Masters win was spectacular to watch. But again, he was solid and kept cool under pressure and made the shots when he needed to. But Tiger would go out there and just wipe the field clean. Jack never did that. I dunno. Both sides have strong points. Maybe had I been able to watch Jack as an older person I'd have a different perspective (born 1969). But for me, it's Tiger and probably will be for a very long time if not forever.

[sheepdog]

Well I joined just to get in on this. I'm 63, I've seen them both. You youngsters know I'm going to say Jack and your right, I'll put him over Tiger. Lets compare parts of their game.

Driver, Both were among the longest of their era. During the 60s Nicklaus could hit it farther than anyone on tour and Palmer and a guy named George Bayer were long.. Jack also hit fairways, Tiger doesn't. Clear advantage Nicklaus.

Long irons, Jack, best long iron player ever.

Middle irons, tie both hit shots that were unbelievable, Nicklaus never missed a green, maybe just a slight nod to Jack here, no I'll call it a tie.

Short irons, Tiger gets the nod but Nicklaus was no slouch

Wedge, Tiger no doubt but don't think Nicklaus was a 15 handicapper with a wedge as some of you younger folks imply.

Short game, again Tiger, perhaps he got more practice at it, during his prime Nicklaus just didn't miss greens. Tiger is the clear winner here.

Putter, A tie, both made putts when they absolutely had to.

Mental, Here's what made Jack better than Tiger, Nicklaus just never made a mistake on the course as well as with his personal life. Married to the same woman for what 57, 58 years, says something. Nicklaus' mental capacity on the course was truly tops, he could re rout his swing during the middle of it, read up on Jack's famous one iron at Pebble that he bounced off the flagstick in the 72 Open.

Intimidation, Tiger here, of course it was harder for Jack to intimidate Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Floyd & Snead,

Longevity, Yes this matters and Jack wins hands down. Tiger jacks around with his swing too much, Nicklaus might have tweaked his a little but never to the degree Tiger did. Tiger listened to too many other experts. Trevino had it right here when he stated I won't listen to anyone telling me to do this or that until he could prove to me that he could beat me.

 

That's my opinion and we all know about opinions.