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

[iacas]

1 minute ago, sheepdog said:

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.

Tiger is an incredible iron player, including long irons. I think he was better than Jack here. Tiger would have led the PGA Tour in strokes gained several years if you ONLY counted his approach shots, for example.

1 minute ago, sheepdog said:

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.

Jack being married to the same woman has nothing to do with "who is the greatest golfer."

1 minute ago, sheepdog said:

Longevity, Yes this matters and Jack wins hands down.

Longevity doesn't matter - to me - at all.

Let's imagine that one player has a record that takes him 25 years to accomplish, while another player does it in 12… you're effectively punishing the second player for burning brighter and earning wins much more quickly. That implies a better, higher standard of play. Longevity? That's a contrary argument IMO for greatness.

[Patch]

Neither is the GOAT. They are both a GOTE. "Greatest Of Their Era". Different equipment. Different course conditions. Different competition. Different coaching, and exercise routines. Plus, they never played against each other in their primes. Who can honestly say,  one would have been 1+ stroke better than the other, more times than not?

Different age groups will have different opinions. I saw them both play. Both were really good golfers.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Patch

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Patch said:

Neither is the GOAT.

Then who is?

---

In other words, I get what you're trying to say, but it's bull. Either you think they're both tied, someone else is the GOAT, or one of them is.

I think Tiger is. Accomplished about the same or more against significantly stronger, deeper fields.

I don't care about "different competition" or "different equipment." They can only play who they played against, with what they had. The equipment helped narrow the gap, which hurt Tiger. Jack's said as much.

[Jack Watson]

3:00 Tough to beat someone as clutch as Jack 

 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

3:00 Tough to beat someone as clutch as Jack 

Yeah, great video… he lost that one to Watson who had basically a gimme left for the victory. And Tiger was pretty damn clutch too.

You're not contributing to the conversation, @Jack Watson.

[Jack Watson]

My contribution is to make the point that if longevity doesn’t matter I vote Johnny Miller.

[HJJ003]

The problem with the GOAT discussion in every sport is people often look at from the angle of which career they would rather have. If Tiger never wins again people would be crazy to rather have 14 majors to jacks 18. The thing is though is that’s not always the way to look at. Jack has accomplished more in his career in terms of wins and majors. That’s a fact. However, no one could control the golf ball in every facet of his game like Tiger did in his prime (and throughout most of his career). I don’t think the game was ever played better than when Tiger was at his best, even if he didn’t get the final numbers that Jack did due to longevity.

[sheepdog]

35 minutes ago, iacas said:

Tiger is an incredible iron player, including long irons. I think he was better than Jack here. Tiger would have led the PGA Tour in strokes gained several years if you ONLY counted his approach shots, for example.

Jack being married to the same woman has nothing to do with "who is the greatest golfer."

Longevity doesn't matter - to me - at all.

Let's imagine that one player has a record that takes him 25 years to accomplish, while another player does it in 12… you're effectively punishing the second player for burning brighter and earning wins much more quickly. That implies a better, higher standard of play. Longevity? That's a contrary argument IMO for greatness.

I wonder how old you are, Nicklaus hit long irons better than anyone, even Tiger. People that saw both in their prime will agree with me. If Jack being married to the same woman didn't matter than how did the 9 iron that Erin bounced off Tiger's skull effect his game, his mental attitude? Longevity matters, ask Tiger what he would give for being healthy the last ten years. Longevity matters because Tiger will never catch Jack now, Jack won 3 majors in his 40s, Tiger would sell his soul to the devil if he could. Ask Tiger if longevity matters.

Which young pro was it that said back in 2015 when informed Tiger was going to tee it up that week that he was glad the best player ever was going to play that week to which Gary Player promptly replied he didn't know Jack was going to be out there. Argue with Gary Player.

 

 

 

 

[sheepdog]

By the way compare their Ryder Cup records.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

My contribution is to make the point that if longevity doesn’t matter I vote Johnny Miller.

You can't support that, so no, you're just trolling.

2 hours ago, HJJ003 said:

If Tiger never wins again people would be crazy to rather have 14 majors to jacks 18.

No they wouldn't be.

Tiger's 14 majors are a greater achievement than Jack's 18.

Yes, that's my opinion, but it's not "crazy" and it's how the majority likely feel. I could make a very compelling case for the depth and strength of the field making 14 > 18. Pretty easily. 1/3 of the field in Jack's day were club professionals with no chance of winning.

It's incredibly simplistic to boil it down to "18 is larger than 14."

2 hours ago, HJJ003 said:

Jack has accomplished more in his career in terms of wins and majors. That’s a fact.

That's not really a fact… I could point out that Jack actually has six fewer PGA Tour wins than Tiger. 73 to 79.

2 hours ago, sheepdog said:

I wonder how old you are, Nicklaus hit long irons better than anyone, even Tiger.

I disagree. Did you not watch the tournament at Hoylake where Tiger won hitting a single driver all week? He got by that week, and dominated, hitting a ton of long irons for the week.

Tiger still carries and often plays a 2-iron.

2 hours ago, sheepdog said:

Longevity matters, ask Tiger what he would give for being healthy the last ten years.

Had he been, he'd have likely easily surpassed Jack. He was certainly on a pace to do so, despite the stronger/deeper fields, and he was entering a golfer's prime: his early to mid-30s.

Longevity doesn't matter. A guy who accomplishes "X" career statistics in 25 years is actually likely a worse golfer than one who accomplishes the same things in 1/2 the time.

2 hours ago, sheepdog said:

Longevity matters because Tiger will never catch Jack now

IMO, and the opinions of many, Tiger already surpassed Jack for GOAT title.

Tiger's 14 majors were a bigger accomplishment than Jack's 18, for reasons including but not limited to the incredible increase in the strength and depth of the fields. Add in that Tiger has more PGA Tour wins, and the needle swings that way even further.

Tiger's the GOAT, IMO, and in the opinions of many others. He's already caught and surpassed Jack.

2 hours ago, sheepdog said:

Which young pro was it that said back in 2015 when informed Tiger was going to tee it up that week that he was glad the best player ever was going to play that week to which Gary Player promptly replied he didn't know Jack was going to be out there. Argue with Gary Player.

I don't give a shit about Gary Player. It's one guy's opinion. And of course he's going to say he played against the best, because it's a back-door way of talking about Gary Player and bragging about Gary Player, which if you ask Gary Player and he's honest, is his absolute favorite thing to do.

1 hour ago, sheepdog said:

By the way compare their Ryder Cup records.

Pointless. Jack competed against incredibly weak teams, and more than half the time Tiger was paired against the best Europe had to offer WHILE being saddled with a partner.

Tiger won six straight U.S. Am titles (three juniors, three ams). Jack only won two.

[HJJ003]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

No they wouldn't be.

Tiger's 14 majors are a greater achievement than Jack's 18.

Yes, that's my opinion, but it's not "crazy" and it's how the majority likely feel. I could make a very compelling case for the depth and strength of the field making 14 > 18. Pretty easily. 1/3 of the field in Jack's day were club professionals with no chance of winning.

It's incredibly simplistic to boil it down to "18 is larger than 14."

Yes, it is simplistic...and that was my point. The GOAT argument is often made too simple. Jack had 18...and Tiger had 14...and people stop the discussion there. It WOULD be crazy to select someone with less majors if you don't take anything else into consideration. If all you take into consideration is the number of majors a guy has then people automatically default to Jack. I have had this discussion with too many people that have stated "Jack won more major he is the greatest end of discussion". As you pointed out with your strength of the field comment there was more to it then just number of times a guy won. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, HJJ003 said:

Yes, it is simplistic...and that was my point. The GOAT argument is often made too simple. Jack had 18...and Tiger had 14...and people stop the discussion there. It WOULD be crazy to select someone with less majors if you don't take anything else into consideration.

Okay, I get your point now, but you could also look at something like the money earned (or the fame created - Nicklaus isn't known well outside of golf, Tiger was known around the world) for those 14 majors and still not be crazy to choose the 14.

2 minutes ago, HJJ003 said:

If all you take into consideration is the number of majors a guy has then people automatically default to Jack. I have had this discussion with too many people that have stated "Jack won more major he is the greatest end of discussion". As you pointed out with your strength of the field comment there was more to it then just number of times a guy won. 

Yep. There's a lot more to it.

[HJJ003]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

but you could also look at something like the money earned (or the fame created - Nicklaus isn't known well outside of golf, Tiger was known around the world) for those 14 majors and still not be crazy to choose the 14.

Very much agreed. Golf didn't change all that much under Jack. Golf was revolutionized by Tiger. 

[Moxley]

No, it means that the player who achieved the stuff in half the time likely had a higher peak than the other.  If they both had the same opportunity, then the achievement is the same, or otherwise simply a matter of personal preference on how you prefer the distribution to be. 

 

39 minutes ago, iacas said:

Longevity doesn't matter. A guy who accomplishes "X" career statistics in 25 years is actually likely a worse golfer than one who accomplishes the same things in 1/2 the time.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Moxley said:

No, it means that the player who achieved the stuff in half the time likely had a higher peak than the other.  If they both had the same opportunity, then the achievement is the same, or otherwise simply a matter of personal preference on how you prefer the distribution to be. 

Right, so if the players accomplish basically the same things, and one has a "higher peak," then he's arguably the greatest simply on that. In that sense "longevity" argues against the original point.

[Moxley]

Just now, iacas said:

Right, so if the players accomplish basically the same things, and one has a "higher peak," then he's arguably the greatest simply on that. In that sense "longevity" argues against the original point.

 

Not really, you can make it a tie-breaker if you like, but it's still just your preference. Others prefer to see an enduring talent. 

Another way to look at this is to compare a sportsman who has an incredible peak, based primarily on being able to maximise their physical advantage when this was better the field, compared to a technical wizard who didn't rely on power and thus remained competitive for decades. Which is these is 'better' is a matter of preference. 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Moxley said:

Not really, you can make it a tie-breaker if you like, but it's still just your preference. Others prefer to see an enduring talent.

I disagree.

I think those arguing "longevity" for Nicklaus are reaching for straws.

Imagine a situation where Jack Nicklaus got his record (18/73) and Tiger didn't exist. Someone comes out on Tour and wins every event in which they play. They win 18 majors in a row and 73 PGA Tour events. Then, after 4.5 years, they suffer an injury or just flat out decide to retire.

Identical record… and Jack is the better player because it took him 25 years to do it instead of 4.5? C'mon…

Yet that's what the "longevity" people would have to argue.

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, Moxley said:

Another way to look at this is to compare a sportsman who has an incredible peak, based primarily on being able to maximise their physical advantage when this was better the field, compared to a technical wizard who didn't rely on power and thus remained competitive for decades. Which is these is 'better' is a matter of preference. 

Not real, in sports it’s about accomplishments. 

Also, longevity just means you needed more time to accomplish the same task. It’s more impressive what Tiger did.