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

[Vinsk]

19 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I don’t see any reason preventing a person of average build/strength/range of motion of swinging 105+ except lack of the above qualities.  

Yet John Daly, Kevin Stadler, Ken Duke, Ian Woosnam, ...are certainly not of ‘average build’. There’s a reason why an Olympic gold medalist track star can’t break 90 but those listed can.

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

@turtleback

We aren’t discussing the Haig or Vardon. 

In all GOAT discussions in all sports number of the biggest championships won weighs very heavily.

 

 

Aaaaaaand, you ignore the point.  You get 50 tries to hit the target and I get 150 tries to hit the target and whichever of us hit it more times is the best.  Could anyone find  that remotely fair or reasonable or rational?

No one ever did until Jack and some sycophants sold it in the late 70s.

Proving yet again that your anointed 'scoreboard' is of relatively recent origin and has only actually been used one time.

[shanksalot]

The only thing I could add was for his first ten years Tiger was the most dominate player ever in Professional golf. Jack won more Majors and because of that he is considered by many as the GOAT. How can you argue against either player. Jack's career extended close to 25 years professionally and for most of that time was really not challenged by anyone during that period of time. Arnie for a half dozen years early and Watson at the end. Even with Tiger coming back now, assuming he stays healthy I doubt he will challenge Jack's 18 Major total. Ten years ago most every one thought Woods would blow past Jack's record. Tiger really killed any chance he had with his poor behavior with his marriage and his philandering ways. The injuries really hurt him the last 6-8 years. Despite all that he still managed to win 79 times only Sam Snead had more. I watched both players through both of their careers and if I had to pick one it might be Jack on another day it might be Tiger. They both were the most dominant in their era and both eras had great players as well. 

[Jack Watson]

@turtleback

Are you saying Jack has an unfair advantage over Tiger opportunity wise?

[turtleback]

12 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

@turtleback

Are you saying Jack has an unfair advantage over Tiger opportunity wise?

No, I am saying that the very notion of using a single metric, that was never applied to anyone other than the guy you support, which he lobbied for and by doing so threw all prior golfers under the bus, is an absurdity.  

It was a heck of a selling job that Jack and his boys pulled off in the 70s.

 

[turtleback]

32 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

The only thing I could add was for his first ten years Tiger was the most dominate player ever in Professional golf. Jack won more Majors and because of that he is considered by many as the GOAT. How can you argue against either player. Jack's career extended close to 25 years professionally and for most of that time was really not challenged by anyone during that period of time. Arnie for a half dozen years early and Watson at the end. Even with Tiger coming back now, assuming he stays healthy I doubt he will challenge Jack's 18 Major total. Ten years ago most every one thought Woods would blow past Jack's record. Tiger really killed any chance he had with his poor behavior with his marriage and his philandering ways. The injuries really hurt him the last 6-8 years. Despite all that he still managed to win 79 times only Sam Snead had more. I watched both players through both of their careers and if I had to pick one it might be Jack on another day it might be Tiger. They both were the most dominant in their era and both eras had great players as well. 

While it is true that Snead has the most official victories, the definition of official that applied to him was very different than the one that applies to Tiger.  There are a couple of categories like pairs events and very limited field events that count in Sam's official total, but similar events do not count in Tigers.  On an apples to apples basis, whether you count these categories for both of them or eliminate them from the count for both of them Tiger is actually ahead.  Somewhere back in this thread I showed the details.

 

And the irony is, that one of Jack's FIRST stated criteria for becoming recognized as the greatest ever was to beat Snead's record for tour victories.  Early in his career he thought this would be easy, but his pace of winning slowed and it became pretty clear he wouldn't get there.  Right about that time is when he started the drumbeat for majors, a much more attainable goal, maybe being more important.  And once he GOT the lead in majors made that silly statement that the only fair way to compare eras was number of majors won.

It is much easier to win a game when you decide what 'scoreboard' is after the fact.

[Golfingdad]

18 minutes ago, turtleback said:

And the irony is, that one of Jack's FIRST stated criteria for becoming recognized as the greatest ever was to beat Snead's record for tour victories.  Early in his career he thought this would be easy, but his pace of winning slowed and it became pretty clear he wouldn't get there.  Right about that time is when he started the drumbeat for majors, a much more attainable goal, maybe being more important.  And once he GOT the lead in majors made that silly statement that the only fair way to compare eras was number of majors won.

It is much easier to win a game when you decide what 'scoreboard' is after the fact.

This is a good argument if the topic was comparing Jack to those before him.  If anybody stated that Jack was better than those before him solely because of number of majors, this post would prove them wrong and win that thread.  But that isn't the topic here, we're talking about Tiger, who came after Jack decided that majors were the most important.  And once Jack made that the goal, most of the other players also bought into it, and so in that regard, it's not "after the fact."  Tiger and everybody in today's era also view majors as far and away the most important tournaments.  It's a perfectly viable metric in the Jack v. Tiger debate.  (I'm not saying it needs to be the only one, but it cannot be discounted just because it was Jack's idea first)

[turtleback]

30 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This is a good argument if the topic was comparing Jack to those before him.  If anybody stated that Jack was better than those before him solely because of number of majors, this post would prove them wrong and win that thread.  But that isn't the topic here, we're talking about Tiger, who came after Jack decided that majors were the most important.  And once Jack made that the goal, most of the other players also bought into it, and so in that regard, it's not "after the fact."  Tiger and everybody in today's era also view majors as far and away the most important tournaments.  It's a perfectly viable metric in the Jack v. Tiger debate.  (I'm not saying it needs to be the only one, but it cannot be discounted just because it was Jack's idea first)

What is the point, when every time you unpack the pro-Jack arguments and dismiss the ones that have been discredited all you end up with is 18>14?  Have you seen any sign that Mr. Murphy is even considering anything real beyond 18>14?  So if the whole case is 18>14, something that even iacas has come around to, what can you do but destroy the underpinnings of the metric?  What rational reason is there for THIS being the metric?  Why is THIS better than a metric of most wins in premium events, defined as majors, WGCs, and Players?  After all at least in the modern era these have some of the strongest fields, certainly stronger than a lot of the majors in Jack's prime and previously.

 

But if someone were to propose changing the metric from majors to premium events, everyone would scream about how unfair that is to Jack because he didn't get to play WGCs so we are elimination him from the discussion by a definition.  And never think about the fact that this was EXACTLY what happened when majors became the sole metric and it was unfair to Hogan and Hagen and Snead and Vardon, who were arbitrarily written out of the discussion by a definition.

[shanksalot]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

While it is true that Snead has the most official victories, the definition of official that applied to him was very different than the one that applies to Tiger.  There are a couple of categories like pairs events and very limited field events that count in Sam's official total, but similar events do not count in Tigers.  On an apples to apples basis, whether you count these categories for both of them or eliminate them from the count for both of them Tiger is actually ahead.  Somewhere back in this thread I showed the details.

 

And the irony is, that one of Jack's FIRST stated criteria for becoming recognized as the greatest ever was to beat Snead's record for tour victories.  Early in his career he thought this would be easy, but his pace of winning slowed and it became pretty clear he wouldn't get there.  Right about that time is when he started the drumbeat for majors, a much more attainable goal, maybe being more important.  And once he GOT the lead in majors made that silly statement that the only fair way to compare eras was number of majors won.

It is much easier to win a game when you decide what 'scoreboard' is after the fact.

You can't rewrite the record  books. Snead is on record with 82 wins. We can only work with those stated wins, Major and Tour as they stand today. The other big stat for Jack is his 19 second place finishes. 37 times he finished either first or second. That is impressive. I am not a Jack Nicklaus fan yet he, in my opinion, if you consider Majors as the thing that makes a player the greatest than it has to be Jack, yet Tiger was a one time going to destroy all the records until that fatal 2009 fiasco. I will always wonder what might have happened IF!!!

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

I don’t see any reason preventing a person of average build/strength/range of motion of swinging 105+ except lack of the above qualities.  

Alvaro Quiros was asked about his length one time and his reply was most of it was the coordination.

Alvaro Quiros is dead wrong.

Speed is not something everyone is born with, nor something they can attain. Some people, perfectly healthy adult men, cannot achieve 105 MPH, let alone the 110-115+ required.

11 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Have you seen any sign that Mr. Murphy is even considering anything real beyond 18>14?  So if the whole case is 18>14, something that even iacas has come around to, what can you do but destroy the underpinnings of the metric?

On this, @turtleback, I don't think you're really destroying the underpinnings. You would be if you're talking about Hagen or even Hogan vs. Nicklaus, but Jack and Tiger had the same opportunities.

You would have to say things like "Well, Tiger should just count the WGCs as majors, or as 3x regular tournaments," because that would be like Tiger doing to Jack what Jack did to everyone else (including Snead). (You get to this a sentence or two later.)

But if you're trying to destroy the idea that 18 > 14 is bogus (I don't think it's bogus, as you know, I just think it's the ONLY thing that favors Jack, and even then you have to ignore strength/depth of field for that to matter), you have to realize Jack/Tiger had the same opportunities to play four a year.

11 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Why is THIS better than a metric of most wins in premium events, defined as majors, WGCs, and Players?  After all at least in the modern era these have some of the strongest fields, certainly stronger than a lot of the majors in Jack's prime and previously.

Yeah, so, that's the angle you have to take, as I said above. This is like Tiger doing to Jack what Jack did to others.

11 minutes ago, turtleback said:

But if someone were to propose changing the metric from majors to premium events, everyone would scream about how unfair that is to Jack because he didn't get to play WGCs so we are elimination him from the discussion by a definition. And never think about the fact that this was EXACTLY what happened when majors became the sole metric and it was unfair to Hogan and Hagen and Snead and Vardon, who were arbitrarily written out of the discussion by a definition.

Just leaving that there so it can be re-read by some. Yep.

 Jack.

[Golfingdad]

58 minutes ago, turtleback said:

What is the point, when every time you unpack the pro-Jack arguments and dismiss the ones that have been discredited all you end up with is 18>14?  Have you seen any sign that Mr. Murphy is even considering anything real beyond 18>14?  So if the whole case is 18>14, something that even iacas has come around to, what can you do but destroy the underpinnings of the metric?  What rational reason is there for THIS being the metric?  Why is THIS better than a metric of most wins in premium events, defined as majors, WGCs, and Players?  After all at least in the modern era these have some of the strongest fields, certainly stronger than a lot of the majors in Jack's prime and previously.

 

But if someone were to propose changing the metric from majors to premium events, everyone would scream about how unfair that is to Jack because he didn't get to play WGCs so we are elimination him from the discussion by a definition.  And never think about the fact that this was EXACTLY what happened when majors became the sole metric and it was unfair to Hogan and Hagen and Snead and Vardon, who were arbitrarily written out of the discussion by a definition.

I'm not saying that it should be the metric, I'm saying you can't discount it as a metric simply because it was Jack's idea first.  (You absolutely can discount it as a metric in a Jack vs. anybody prior to him debate, as you rationally pointed out in a post above.)

Jack came up with it, sure ... but the vast majority of players and fans since have all bought in it, and all of that combined have given the metric a lot of credence.

[iacas]

15 hours ago, shanksalot said:

…I am not a Jack Nicklaus fan yet he, in my opinion, if you consider Majors as the thing that makes a player the greatest than it has to be Jack…

It doesn't have to be, no. It's quite possible, if you consider strength of field, to arrive at the conclusion that "14 (1997-2008)" > "18 (1962-1986)".

[lastings]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

Alvaro Quiros is dead wrong.

Speed is not something everyone is born with, nor something they can attain. Some people, perfectly healthy adult men, cannot achieve 105 MPH, let alone the 110-115+ required.

I am 6'2" - 195 lbs.  I'm in pretty good shape and I'm a former high school athlete.  My swing speed tops out around 100.   now, granted, I have some weight transfer issues amongst other swing issues, and I'm sure with work I can add another 5-7 mph.   but, if we're being realistic, 110-115 is probably just not in the cards for me.   

[turtleback]

15 hours ago, shanksalot said:

You can't rewrite the record  books. Snead is on record with 82 wins. We can only work with those stated wins, Major and Tour as they stand today. The other big stat for Jack is his 19 second place finishes. 37 times he finished either first or second. That is impressive. I am not a Jack Nicklaus fan yet he, in my opinion, if you consider Majors as the thing that makes a player the greatest than it has to be Jack, yet Tiger was a one time going to destroy all the records until that fatal 2009 fiasco. I will always wonder what might have happened IF!!!

Well, that's kind of the point.  For most of the history of golf, including the early part of Jack's career, Majors were NEVER considered the thing that makes a player the greatest.  Heck, as I mentioned before, unlike today it was not very common for good players to even play all 4 every year.  In his storied career, in which for the period 1968-1970 he was the best player in the game, Billy Casper played the British open only 5 times.  Hogan played it once.  Same Snead played all 4 majors only 4 times in his whole career.  Hogan NEVER played all 4 in a year.

 

The point is that the overweening importance of majors is a relatively recent thing, pretty much stemming from Jack, with an assist from Arnie who raised the idea of a modern professional grand slam.  Before that they were big important tournaments, but not even 'must play' events.

 

Jack was the very first (and only) golfer ever to be anointed the greatest on the basis of most majors.  Why should majors be the basis of greatness as compared to, say, premium (i.e., majors, WGCs, and Players) events?  Use the latter and Tiger blew right past Jack with his 34 championships in premium events while Jack only has 20 (and don't dare bring up how Jack didn't have the opportunity to play WGCs, or I'll clobber you with Hagen).  Why is 18>14 considered the standard rather than 34>20?  WGCs are demonstrably held in higher regard than majors were, pre-Jack.  How do I know?  Because it was very common for players to skip majors back then but it is relatively rare for a player who is eligible for a WGC to skip it.

15 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I'm not saying that it should be the metric, I'm saying you can't discount it as a metric simply because it was Jack's idea first.  (You absolutely can discount it as a metric in a Jack vs. anybody prior to him debate, as you rationally pointed out in a post above.)

Jack came up with it, sure ... but the vast majority of players and fans since have all bought in it, and all of that combined have given the metric a lot of credence.

I've never said number of majors should not be A metric.  It is the people who, when you boil down all of their arguments, end up making it the ONLY criteria that I argue against.

[Golfingdad]

25 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Well, that's kind of the point.  For most of the history of golf, including the early part of Jack's career, Majors were NEVER considered the thing that makes a player the greatest.  Heck, as I mentioned before, unlike today it was not very common for good players to even play all 4 every year.  In his storied career, in which for the period 1968-1970 he was the best player in the game, Billy Casper played the British open only 5 times.  Hogan played it once.  Same Snead played all 4 majors only 4 times in his whole career.  Hogan NEVER played all 4 in a year.

 

The point is that the overweening importance of majors is a relatively recent thing, pretty much stemming from Jack, with an assist from Arnie who raised the idea of a modern professional grand slam.  Before that they were big important tournaments, but not even 'must play' events.

 

Jack was the very first (and only) golfer ever to be anointed the greatest on the basis of most majors.  Why should majors be the basis of greatness as compared to, say, premium (i.e., majors, WGCs, and Players) events?  Use the latter and Tiger blew right past Jack with his 34 championships in premium events while Jack only has 20 (and don't dare bring up how Jack didn't have the opportunity to play WGCs, or I'll clobber you with Hagen).  Why is 18>14 considered the standard rather than 34>20?  WGCs are demonstrably held in higher regard than majors were, pre-Jack.  How do I know?  Because it was very common for players to skip majors back then but it is relatively rare for a player who is eligible for a WGC to skip it.

I've never said number of majors should not be A metric.  It is the people who, when you boil down all of their arguments, end up making it the ONLY criteria that I argue against.

But at this point that is everybody who disagrees with you. :)

[iacas]

1 hour ago, lastings said:

I am 6'2" - 195 lbs.  I'm in pretty good shape and I'm a former high school athlete.  My swing speed tops out around 100.   now, granted, I have some weight transfer issues amongst other swing issues, and I'm sure with work I can add another 5-7 mph.   but, if we're being realistic, 110-115 is probably just not in the cards for me.   

This isn't the topic here, fellas.

I told @Jack Watson that if he wants to argue that any average guy has the "physicality" to make the Tour, he should start a new topic on that.

[mvmac]

Duval talking about depth of field on tour.

 

[Jack Watson]

@mvmac

Whats the date on the video?

Tigers heyday was what 17 years ago?

Tiger wasn’t beating the guys today silly.  Back then the field was so weak at the top.  Not many knew how to win.