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

[BreaksLeft]

Hey everyone.  Ed here.  New to the forum and this is my first post.  Pretty amazing that this thread started 12 years ago!!!  I can see it is still generating a little heat.

I am an old timer and grew up in Columbus so I admit an emotional bias for Jack.  He was my boyhood hero.

My view is that at his peak, for that extended moment, Tiger was the best to ever play the game.  As noted elsewhere in this thread, even Jack says that.

Does that mean he was the best of all time?  Depends on the definition.  I think Jack had the better career, by Tiger's own definition.  18 is more that 14.  Tiger could have been the greatest and should have been they greatest.  But he fell short due to injury and scandal.

Tiger could beat Jack when they were both in their prime.  But Jack could wax the floor with Tiger at age 42.  To be the greatest of all time you've got to keep it going.  Golf is not a sprint.

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, BreaksLeft said:

I think Jack had the better career, by Tiger's own definition.  18 is more that 14.

Thing is… I'm not obligated to use "Tiger's own definition."

And as @turtleback pointed out a long time ago, "Jack's own definition" used to be # of PGA Tour wins, until he realized he probably wouldn't catch Sam Snead, and then it became about the # of majors.

As I've said many times, my thinking goes well beyond "18 > 14" which I find to be a vastly over-simplistic way of looking at things. It doesn't consider margins, the fields against which they played, the scrutiny, etc.

[Wally Fairway]

@iacas - do you start to think that sometimes new posters are here just to chime in on this thread?
I wonder how many people have made their first post in here (or one of their first 10 posts).

BTW - I look past wins, and temper longevity; I think wins, 2nd's and top 10's are all important to consider .... and Tiger still get the GOAT vote, even if he isn't No. 1 is those stats.
(only 14 more page to 300 {thumbsup}

[sheepdog]

21 minutes ago, klineka said:

But it really does take all of that into consideration. The player's statistics/performance will reflect all of those variables, and the player's statistics reflect in the WAR. 

The better players are better at managing all of those different variables and still performing at a high level. 

You still didnt answer my original question. If you dont base your opinion on anything involving "mathematical stuff", what do you base your opinion on?

Life and the knowledge I have attained in my 63 years on the planet. I'm sure there is some math involved but not to the degree things like WAR have to do with things. IMHO today people just have too many mathematical stats. They can tell you things how many feet the average Joe Blow hit his 9 iron from the flag at 139 yards on a partly cloudy day on bermuda fairways. Too complicated yet doesn't take into consideration the human aspect of it all. I take into consideration things us older folks take into consideration. I don't need all the math, I use what's happened in my life much more. It's simpler to me. I use my brain, not a computer. I was in the paint business for 44 years. I  I can look at a building and pretty much tell you what it would take to paint it. If there's something to figure it's pad and pencil time. Today that gets some strange looks but it works for me. I don't show up at a job site with a  laptop, just a pad and pencil.

I used to have 37 people working under me, all but two of them younger. I can see the difference the way my generation thinks compared to more recent generations. I'm from the three channel on the TV generation. Smart phones, I lived the majority of my life without one. Did damn well too. Some things are an improvement, some not. I'm fairly set in my ways. The dog and new tricks thing.

I understand it's up to me to keep an open mind to other's ideas but I expect the same from others about mine. You have as much right to think Tiger is the best ever just as I have as much right to differ. I'll argue it with you but I respect your view.

[Patch]

Well said Sheepdog. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Patch

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

@iacas - do you start to think that sometimes new posters are here just to chime in on this thread?

Oh, I know some do. It's included, too, in the "welcome" PM that they're sent.

22 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

BTW - I look past wins, and temper longevity; I think wins, 2nd's and top 10's are all important to consider .... and Tiger still get the GOAT vote, even if he isn't No. 1 is those stats.

Yeah… everyone has their own formula.

12 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

I take into consideration things us older folks take into consideration.

Brandel is 55. When he's your age, does his opinion count again? Does it count now?

You seem to keep missing out on the fact that age is not relevant for some people. People are capable of looking at things in a black and white type fashion and forming an opinion. Being older does not make your opinion "better."

I use my brain, too. But I don't base my opinion on subjective stuff; I look at what the record says. Not whether Jack was a better husband, which has nothing to do with golf. Their performance on the golf course - that's what my brain cares about.

12 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

I'm from the three channel on the TV generation.

I grew up flipping the dial on my TV from UHF to VHF and hitting balata balls with persimmon drivers, too, buddy. So, good, is my opinion relevant again?

[klineka]

15 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Life and the knowledge I have attained in my 63 years on the planet. I'm sure there is some math involved but not to the degree things like WAR have to do with things. IMHO today people just have too many mathematical stats. They can tell you things how many feet the average Joe Blow hit his 9 iron from the flag at 139 yards on a partly cloudy day on bermuda fairways. Too complicated yet doesn't take into consideration the human aspect of it all.

But the math and statistics really do take into consideration the human aspect. If Joe Blow typically averages a 20' proximity to the hole with his 9 iron from 139 on a partly cloudy day from bermuda and the most recent shot he hit was 50' from the hole, then clearly something went wrong with the human aspect. If you didnt know what Joe Blow's average proximity to the hole was in this scenario and he hit a shot that ended up 18' from the hole, he might not be happy with it because he wanted it closer, when in reality it was actually an above average shot. 

16 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

I take into consideration things us older folks take into consideration. I don't need all the math, I use what's happened in my life much more. It's simpler to me. I use my brain, not a computer.

Us older folks is a generalization. You're using your age as an excuse to justify stubbornness. My father-in-law is a year or two older than you and he works in the IT field and knows more about computer networking and enterprise level computer networks than I do, and I have a bachelor's degree in IT and work in the IT field. 

It doesn't make sense to me to use your brain when something that is faster, more accurate, more efficient exists that can accomplish the same task. Calculating the total square footage of a building and determining how many gallons of paint that would take. I could write a computer program where you input the building's dimensions and it tells me exactly how many gallons of paint are required. Instantly. No pencil or paper necessary. Quicker, more efficient, and more accurate than manual computations ever will be. 

38 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

I'm from the three channel on the TV generation. Smart phones, I lived the majority of my life without one. Did damn well too. Some things are an improvement, some not. 

I'm willing to bet you have now watched more than those three original channels on TV, and based on your next sentence it appears that you also have a smart phone. You are obviously using the Internet as well to be a part of this forum. You adapted to the new technology on those areas, yet you are choosing not to adapt in using math and statistics to compare two golfers, even though math and statistics as a means of comparing two athletes have been around longer than smart phones and the Internet? 

28 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

I'm fairly set in my ways. 

28 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

I understand it's up to me to keep an open mind to other's ideas but I expect the same from others about mine. You have as much right to think Tiger is the best ever just as I have as much right to differ. I'll argue it with you but I respect your view.

 Being fairly set in your ways isnt being open minded to other's ideas.

I respect that you have a different viewpoint that myself or someone else, but I have a hard time taking your opinion seriously when it is soley based on "Life and the knowledge I have attained in my 63 years on the planet" 

Based on that logic, that would mean that your opinion on the comparison of Tiger and Jack is better, more accurate, etc. than everyone that is younger than you because you have attained more knowledge and life experience than they have.

Also, based on that logic all I would have to do is find someone older than 63 to have the opinion that Tiger is better than Jack and your opinion would no longer be valid. See how ridiculous that logic is?

 

[sheepdog]

8 minutes ago, klineka said:

But the math and statistics really do take into consideration the human aspect. If Joe Blow typically averages a 20' proximity to the hole with his 9 iron from 139 on a partly cloudy day from bermuda and the most recent shot he hit was 50' from the hole, then clearly something went wrong with the human aspect. If you didnt know what Joe Blow's average proximity to the hole was in this scenario and he hit a shot that ended up 18' from the hole, he might not be happy with it because he wanted it closer, when in reality it was actually an above average shot. 

Us older folks is a generalization. You're using your age as an excuse to justify stubbornness. My father-in-law is a year or two older than you and he works in the IT field and knows more about computer networking and enterprise level computer networks than I do, and I have a bachelor's degree in IT and work in the IT field. 

It doesn't make sense to me to use your brain when something that is faster, more accurate, more efficient exists that can accomplish the same task. Calculating the total square footage of a building and determining how many gallons of paint that would take. I could write a computer program where you input the building's dimensions and it tells me exactly how many gallons of paint are required. Instantly. No pencil or paper necessary. Quicker, more efficient, and more accurate than manual computations ever will be. 

I'm willing to bet you have now watched more than those three original channels on TV, and based on your next sentence it appears that you also have a smart phone. You are obviously using the Internet as well to be a part of this forum. You adapted to the new technology on those areas, yet you are choosing not to adapt in using math and statistics to compare two golfers, even though math and statistics as a means of comparing two athletes have been around longer than smart phones and the Internet? 

 Being fairly set in your ways isnt being open minded to other's ideas.

I respect that you have a different viewpoint that myself or someone else, but I have a hard time taking your opinion seriously when it is soley based on "Life and the knowledge I have attained in my 63 years on the planet" 

Based on that logic, that would mean that your opinion on the comparison of Tiger and Jack is better, more accurate, etc. than everyone that is younger than you because you have attained more knowledge and life experience than they have.

Also, based on that logic all I would have to do is find someone older than 63 to have the opinion that Tiger is better than Jack and your opinion would no longer be valid. See how ridiculous that logic is?

 

 

Read my last paragraph.

[klineka]

43 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Read my last paragraph.

I read all of your paragraphs. And provided my thoughts and counter-arguments to your statements, which is standard in most arguments/discussions. Interesting how you had nothing else to say other than to instruct me to reread your last paragraph. 

Taken from your last paragraph which I did read and reread...

1 hour ago, sheepdog said:

I'll argue it with you

Simply telling me to reread your last paragraph instead of providing counter-arguments and rebuttals isnt arguing or debating with me. I provided multiple sentences breaking down your last paragraph and explaining why I didnt agree with your last paragraph and you chose not to respond to those statements I made.

 

 

P.S., I just talked to my grandpa who is in his mid 80's and he thinks Tiger is better than Jack so based on your logic and line of thinking that means that he has to be correct since he has aprox. 20 more years of life experience and knowledge on this planet than you do. Case closed until someone who was born before 1934 chimes in and says otherwise.

[sheepdog]

10 minutes ago, klineka said:

I read all of your paragraphs. And provided my thoughts and counter-arguments to your statements, which is standard in most arguments/discussions. Interesting how you had nothing else to say other than to instruct me to reread your last paragraph. 

Taken from your last paragraph which I did read and reread...

Simply telling me to reread your last paragraph instead of providing counter-arguments and rebuttals isnt arguing or debating with me. I provided multiple sentences breaking down your last paragraph and explaining why I didnt agree with your last paragraph and you chose not to respond to those statements I made.

 

 

P.S., I just talked to my grandpa who is in his mid 80's and he thinks Tiger is better than Jack so based on your logic and line of thinking that means that he has to be correct since he has aprox. 20 more years of life experience and knowledge on this planet than you do. Case closed until someone who was born before 1934 chimes in and says otherwise.

Simply put just for you, I said I respected your opinion and expect you to respect mine, case closed.

Edited January 29, 2018 by sheepdog

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Simply put just for you, I said I respected your opinion and expect you to respect mine, case closed.

What does that even mean? That he can't respond to you?

He can respect your right to have an opinion while arguing why your opinion has holes or is faulty or doesn't align with his opinion. And you can do the same.

[klineka]

12 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Simply put just for you, I said I respected your opinion and expect you to respect mine, case closed.

I respect the fact that you do have the right to an opinion, everyone has the right to an opinion, but I dont have to respect your opinion.

Arguing that your opinion is correct simply because you are older and have more life experience than someone else is not an opinion I can respect.

 

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

What does that even mean? That he can't respond to you?

He can respect your right to have an opinion while arguing why your opinion has holes or is faulty or doesn't align with his opinion. And you can do the same.

This.

[sheepdog]

3 minutes ago, klineka said:

I respect the fact that you do have the right to an opinion, everyone has the right to an opinion, but I dont have to respect your opinion.

Arguing that your opinion is correct simply because you are older and have more life experience than someone else is not an opinion I can respect.

 

This.

I respect your opinions, starting to wonder if I respect you as a person.

[iacas]

Just now, sheepdog said:

I respect your opinions, starting to wonder if I respect you as a person.

Then, buddy, you've got it backward.

[sheepdog]

Just now, iacas said:

Then, buddy, you've got it backward.

How so? he doesn't respect my opinions, Mine are as valid as his. He might as well start calling me names like we did when we were kids. He can go troll someone else.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

How so? he doesn't respect my opinions

He doesn't have to.

You said you may not respect him as a person. That's wholly out of bounds. You know almost nothing about him as a person.

If someone who knows nothing about golf instruction offers up an opinion on golf instruction, do I have to respect their opinion? No. But I can still respect the person.

You've got it backward. He doesn't have to respect your opinion.

3 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Mine are as valid as his.

Who says? You? That's just another opinion.

I think your opinion is less valid. Like he says, your only real support has been "I'm older than you" and "18 > 14". Oh, and "Gary Player agrees with me."

3 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

He might as well start calling me names like we did when we were kids. He can go troll someone else.

He's not trolling.

You're closer to trolling than he is. He's responding to your opinions, debating them, discussing them.

You're talking about respect and trolling. That's not the topic.

[sheepdog]

Older people look at things in different ways than younger generations. It's about the life I led. I said that I respected his opinion and he said he didn't respect mine. I think I know when someone is pulling my chain.As a person I know that he doesn't give a **** about my opinions. Says something about him to me.

 

Gary Player agrees with me, Brandel Chamblee doesn't, so?

 

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

As a person I know that he doesn't give a **** about my opinions. Says something about him to me.

All it says to me is he thinks poorly of your opinion.