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

[klineka]

40 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

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.

My thoughts on your opinion has absolutely nothing to do with my thoughts of you as a person. I dont know anything about you other than you're 63, you used to work in paint, you're from Memphis, you're a 10-15 handicap, and you golf right-handed. That's about it. Definitely not enough to judge you as a person. I would have no problem going out and playing a round of golf with you right now. 

I think you are missing the point as to why I don't respect your opinion.

Your age has no bearing on whether or not I respect your opinion. You could be 13, 33, or 63.

I dont respect your opinion because when asked what your opinion is based off of, you said, "Life and the knowledge I have attained in my 63 years on the planet".

For this specific circumstance and the topic in question, I dont think that is a legitimate, respect-worthy reason for someone to base their opinion off of, since the #1 thing everyone uses to determine which athletes are better in ANY sport is mathematics and statistics. When I asked you what your opinion is based off of, if you would have rattled off a number of stats that worked to prove why you think Jack is better, then I absolutely would have respected it your opinion even if its not the same as mine.

Whether or not I respect your opinion on this one topic has nothing to do with my thoughts of you as a person. Like I said, I dont even know enough about you to make that judgement.

Are there instances where having more experience due to age can be a worthy reason to justify your opinion? Probably. Just because I dont respect your opinion on this topic doesnt mean I won't respect your opinion on another topic. 

But for this case specifically, when one side states their opinion and proceeds to back it up with facts and the other side justifies their opinion with "Life and the knowledge I have attained in my 63 years on the planet" I will never respect that, nor do I have to. That doesnt mean I dont respect you as a person. Respecting you as a person and respecting your opinion on one topic are two different things. If I didnt give a **** about your opinion I would have stopped responding a while ago. 

The reason I dont respect your opinion is because of the reasoning behind your opinion. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[sheepdog]

23 minutes ago, klineka said:

My thoughts on your opinion has absolutely nothing to do with my thoughts of you as a person. I dont know anything about you other than you're 63, you used to work in paint, you're from Memphis, you're a 10-15 handicap, and you golf right-handed. That's about it. Definitely not enough to judge you as a person. I would have no problem going out and playing a round of golf with you right now. 

I think you are missing the point as to why I don't respect your opinion.

Your age has no bearing on whether or not I respect your opinion. You could be 13, 33, or 63.

I dont respect your opinion because when asked what your opinion is based off of, you said, "Life and the knowledge I have attained in my 63 years on the planet".

For this specific circumstance and the topic in question, I dont think that is a legitimate, respect-worthy reason for someone to base their opinion off of, since the #1 thing everyone uses to determine which athletes are better in ANY sport is mathematics and statistics. When I asked you what your opinion is based off of, if you would have rattled off a number of stats that worked to prove why you think Jack is better, then I absolutely would have respected it your opinion even if its not the same as mine.

Whether or not I respect your opinion on this one topic has nothing to do with my thoughts of you as a person. Like I said, I dont even know enough about you to make that judgement.

Are there instances where having more experience due to age can be a worthy reason to justify your opinion? Probably. Just because I dont respect your opinion on this topic doesnt mean I won't respect your opinion on another topic. 

But for this case specifically, when one side states their opinion and proceeds to back it up with facts and the other side justifies their opinion with "Life and the knowledge I have attained in my 63 years on the planet" I will never respect that, nor do I have to. That doesnt mean I dont respect you as a person. Respecting you as a person and respecting your opinion on one topic are two different things. If I didnt give a **** about your opinion I would have stopped responding a while ago. 

The reason I dont respect your opinion is because of the reasoning behind your opinion. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I said my piece and you tore it down adding that you have little regard for my opinion. Criticism or well founded disagreement I can take but I dealt with architects for 30 years. Some fresh out of college some with 40 years in the business that had no regard for my opinion. Those were usually the ones that started to have trouble six months after completion of the job. I'm retired and don't have to put up with that anymore.

 

So there. Done here.

This place have a history section or a section for club collectors? I'm 5 feet from a 1964 Wilson 8802 putter a Ping Karsten Co. Anser and a 1941 MacGregor Tommy Armour driver. They used to bring good money. Does anyone talk about that kind of stuff here?

[iacas]

3 hours ago, sheepdog said:

I said my piece and you tore it down adding that you have little regard for my opinion. Criticism or well founded disagreement I can take but I dealt with architects for 30 years.

Huh?

3 hours ago, sheepdog said:

Some fresh out of college some with 40 years in the business that had no regard for my opinion. Those were usually the ones that started to have trouble six months after completion of the job. I'm retired and don't have to put up with that anymore.

I'm not sure what you're thinking here, but:

• You don't have to respect someone's opinion. If Joe Schmoe thinks Hitler was a great leader, you can disrespect his opinion all you want. You should, ideally, maintain respect for the person as long as possible. You got this precisely backward in your statement above.
• This is a forum. We discuss and debate ideas and opinions. You indicated to me in a PM that you were looking forward to that. It's not a debate or a discussion if everyone just posts their opinions and nobody ever comments on anyone else's.
• @klineka doesn't agree with your opinion. So he's going to tell you why. That's not only expected, it's encouraged. You're free to tell him why you don't think his opinion is all that good, if you'd like.

Thus far, your argument "in favor" of Nicklaus being the GOAT is:

• Gary Player says so.
• You're old and you think Jack is better.
• 18 > 14.

That's it.

3 hours ago, sheepdog said:

This place have a history section or a section for club collectors? I'm 5 feet from a 1964 Wilson 8802 putter a Ping Karsten Co. Anser and a 1941 MacGregor Tommy Armour driver. They used to bring good money. Does anyone talk about that kind of stuff here?

Go post about it if you want.

[Buckeyebowman]

One thing I will say for Nicklaus. BTW, I'm 65 and was a Nicklaus fan from the get go. He's a Buckeye and so am I. When Jack came on the Tour he was very much hated. He was just the big, fat kid from Ohio who beat Arnie at all the wrong times! But, he shrugged that off and just kept working. And, he managed to transform himself into a player that people not only respected but loved.

Tiger, on the other hand, was pretty much lionized as soon as he came on Tour. Heck, we'd been watching him since he was 2 years old on the Mike Douglas Show! I'm sure there were a few haters, but there didn't seem to be many. In fact, my Mom didn't like him for no other reason than she felt the announcers "fawned" over him. One Sunday I was paying her a visit and we turned on the golf. Tiger was in the field, and on one par 3 he absolutely blistered his tee shot. I told my Mom, "See that swing? That's why so many people are excited about this kid!"

Tiger's flame burned more brightly, but perhaps for a shorter time. He won a US Open by what?, 12 strokes? He absolutely took apart the Old Course at St. Andrews with only one other competitor finishing under par. He won another US Open on a bad knee that looked like it could collapse under him at any time.

Comparing peak to peak, Tiger's peak is higher. Saying that in no way diminishes Nicklaus' accomplishments.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

I'm sure there were a few haters, but there didn't seem to be many.

Revisionist history.

Tiger was/is (part) black. There were a lot of haters.

And… 15 strokes. -12 to +3.

[Buckeyebowman]

Sheesh! I try to give a guy credit and I can't even get away with that!

[mvmac]

8 hours ago, sheepdog said:

I said my piece and you tore it down adding that you have little regard for my opinion. Criticism or well founded disagreement I can take but I dealt with architects for 30 years. Some fresh out of college some with 40 years in the business that had no regard for my opinion. Those were usually the ones that started to have trouble six months after completion of the job. I'm retired and don't have to put up with that anymore.

Dude we get it , you're old school.

You're welcome to your opinion and so are others. The disagreement is about Tiger vs Jack and others have provided a strong case for Tiger being better than Jack. It's a stronger case because they're using objective data to support their claim.

Think about it this way. If you were a pro, do you think you'd have a better chance at winning in 1967 or 2007? 

It's not even close, the fields are/were much deeper during Tiger's prime.

I'm saying this as a huge fan of Jack's. Who you like better as a player doesn't factor into the debate.

[RussUK]

Always think its a shame about these sort of topics. They remind me of when i was younger and into gaming and we got the whole PS3 vs Xbox 360. They would start off similar with educated comments about the pros of each then eventually a full on fan-boy would turn up and not accept anything less than positive said about his/her choice.

Not saying thats happening here to the same level but its getting a little close. For the record i think Tiger is the best of his generation and Jack was the best of his. I always think Jack and Tiger are tough to compare (if its really possible at all) as the era's they played in were very different in technology, fitness and such like.

99.9% of the posters have been truthful, respectful of others opinions so maybe we can get it back up to 100% (not naming names but think we all know who's who )

[saevel25]

3 hours ago, RussUK said:

They remind me of when i was younger and into gaming and we got the whole PS3 vs Xbox 360.

Except it is more like the PS3 versus a PS2 . Maybe close, but still a seeable difference.

[Jack Watson]

Jack won more majors FACT

Jack finished better in majors over a career than Tiger by a long shot 

FACT

Thats all it is to me.

The response I have heard to this is a NON FACT opinion that the field was a bunch of hacks that Jack was beating.

Lets just stick to the facts and major records.  

Majors are the most important tournamts in golf FACT

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Jack won more majors FACT

Jack finished better in majors over a career than Tiger by a long shot 

FACT

Thats all it is to me.

Cool. You've taken the incredibly simplistic "18 > 14" angle. It's not wrong, it's just… incredibly simplistic, and ignores a ton of stuff.

Also, FACT: Tiger has won 79 PGA Tour events, Jack 73.

Also, FACT: Tiger won more Vardons and Players of the Year than Jack.

FACT: Tiger's ten best years beat Jack's ten best years. I wish I could find @turtleback's post(s) on this. They're pretty compelling.

FACT: Tiger won a higher percentage of his tournaments, had a larger margin of victory, and coughed up only one lead in a major entering Sunday. Jack falls short in all cases.

FACT: Tiger won 18 WGCs. Jack won zero. Think that it's unfair that Jack didn't have WGCs in which to play? Tell it to Hogan and Snead, when Jack decided to switch from career victories to major championships as the criteria.

FACT: the equipment of the modern era, with cavity back irons, hybrids, etc. have helped Tiger's competitors more than they've helped Tiger. Tiger's said it, Jack's said it, equipment makers have said it…

4 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

The response I have heard to this is a NON FACT opinion that the field was a bunch of hacks that Jack was beating.

Sorry Jack, that's a FACT, too: the fields are both stronger and deeper now. Significantly so.

[Jack Watson]

It’s also a fact that Tiger never faced off against as many hall of fame players like Watson Player Palmer as Jack. 

Fields being deeper is a fact,  but facing more guys that are Hall of Fame Is also fact.

 

 

[saevel25]

Here are some quick tables.

Scoring Average - Not even close. Jack's best year worse than Tiger's 16th best scoring average year.

Win Percentage

Top 3% (includes wins)
This one is kind of ridiculous for Tiger. 9 times Tiger finished in the top 3 at least 50% of the time. Jack only hit 50% once. Also, Jack played in un-official events. From 1971 to 1987 he played in 49 un-official events. Which made up 15.6% of the events he played.

Yea, Tiger's best years are definitely better than Jack's best years. It really isn't close.

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

It’s also a fact that Tiger never faced off against as many hall of fame players like Watson Player Palmer as Jack.

A lot of Tiger's competition hasn't yet become eligible for the Hall of Fame.

And… Watson, Player, and Palmer ALSO benefited from the weaker, shallower fields.

[Jack Watson]

It is very simplistic to look at the scoreboard in the most important tournaments.

That doesn’t make it incorrect.  It’s like a baseball game and One team wins 6-5.  

People could argue the losing team had more homeruns and hits and stolen bases and better obp and therefore are a better team.  But the fact is they lost that game.

I hope Tiger surpasses Jack and imo things are looking really good for him right now but the scoreboard is what it is.

 

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

People could argue the losing team had more homeruns and hits and stolen bases and better obp and therefore are a better team.  But the fact is they lost that game.

Baseball is more than just hitting. Just ask the Texas Rangers when they lead the league with offense and couldn't make the playoffs.

Team sports do not match up with individual sports. That is a poor analogy.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

That doesn’t make it incorrect.  It’s like a baseball game and One team wins 6-5.

Sure it does.

Jack played against players who were, on average, worse than Web.com Tour players. Tiger is playing against and played against competition that was almost or arguably more than twice as good.

It's not at all like a baseball game: those teams play against one another directly. Jack never played against Tiger directly (not really), nor against most of his competition.

7 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I hope Tiger surpasses Jack and imo things are looking really good for him right now but the scoreboard is what it is.

And "18 > 14" is an incredibly simplistic view.

I won more than 18 tournaments as a junior. Do I get to claim that my 24 > 18? No, because the level of competition has to be taken into account.

Same here.

[Patch]

With out head to head competition, over a period of time, in their primes, this question will go on for ever. It's the the new "chicken or the egg"  question. I say "new" because they finally figured out the egg made the chicken. 

As I recall ancient history, when both Jack, and Tiger were ask who the better of the two were, Jack said Tiger had a better game. When Tiger was asked, he made it a point that wins in majors defined a golfer's career, and until he surpassed Jack's major win numbers, Jack had the better career.